Q. I have been researching the status of women in Islam, but I found certain things that I cannot understand. For example, I read a Hadith to the effect that if women were allowed to prostrate for anyone, they would do so before their husbands. Obedience by a wife is stressed very strongly. That should be all right if a husband is reasonable in his demands. But many are the husbands that are unreasonable, and with the requirement of obedience women can be in a very difficult position. Moreover, a Qur’anic verse speaks of the steps to be taken before divorce, and it includes beating one’s wife. I am told that the word “beat” is an incorrect translation. Yet there is a Qur’anic statement that gives husbands a step over women in their status. That gives me the impression that the relationship between man and wife in Islam is similar to one between a man and his pet. It is easy to make a pet’s life very difficult without ever incurring a sin. Please explain.
Shahnaz Mukarram, Dhahran
A. It is easy to misinterpret a verse in the Qur’an or a statement by the Prophet if one takes it in isolation, without relating it to other verses and statements on the same subject. Hence it is imperative when we deal with religious text to understand the basic principles that Islam emphasizes and to relate such text to principles applicable to its subject matter. In the relationship between man and woman, the overriding principle is that stated by God in Verse 228 of Surah 2: “Women shall, in all fairness, enjoy rights equal to those exercised against them.” As this statement occurs in the context of divorce, it is applicable to all matrimonial relations. The rights of both husband and wife are equal. There is no doubt about this. The practice of the Prophet and his guidance confirm this.
I realize that the next statement in the same verse speaks of men having an advantage over women, but this advantage is simply the one which gives a man the right to end the marital relationship unilaterally, while a woman needs to prove a case of harm or seek khala’ in order to get her marriage terminated.
In the light of the above statement, and looking at the way God makes His address in the Qur’an, scholars have concluded that whenever an address is made by the Prophet or in the Qur’an, it applies to men and women equally. Excepted from that are the cases where women are addressed specifically as women. Thus, the address in the Qur’an or Hadith applies either to women on their own, when the case is clearly so, or to men and women equally. This means that the order to men to take good care of women, implies that women should also take good care of men. This is a pervasive rule that applies in all situations except where the context is clear that it applies to women only. There is no question that the relationship is one of a master and a pet. It is one between equals, governed by rights specified by God and elaborated by His messenger.
Now if we look at the examples the reader has pointed out, we begin with the Hadith about prostration. It is clearly misquoted by the reader, who makes it a special case for women, while it is not. The Hadith runs as follows: “Qais ibn Saad (a companion of the Prophet) says: I went to Al-Heerah (the capital of Al-Manathirah puppet state in Iraq) where I saw people prostrating before the governor. I thought that God’s messenger had a greater claim to people’s prostration. When I met him I reported this and told him, ‘You have a better claim that we should prostrate ourselves to you.’ He said: ‘Do not do that. Had I thought of ordering anyone to prostrate before another, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands, because of the rights they have against them’.” (Related by Abu Dawood).
When you look at the Hadith in full, you realize that it is a case of prohibition rather than encouragement. It is not permissible for anyone to prostrate himself before another, no matter what position that person occupies. In his own case, the Prophet ordered his companions not to do that. He then added that had such prostration ever been possible, then women might have been ordered to do it for their husbands. But the Prophet did not order that. Hence, it is not right. The construction of the sentence makes it clear that the whole idea is unacceptable. It is stated in this way only to emphasize the matrimonial rights. According to Islam, however, these are equal between man and wife. Hence, we should never belittle women’s rights in Islam.
Another misconception by the reader is that concerned with beating and divorce. The Qur’anic verse that mentions this speaks of women who are rebellious. Three methods of dealing with them are specified in a particular order, one after the other. No one may resort to the second step before the first, or to the third before the second. The verse may be rendered in translation as follows: “As for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them first, then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them.” (4: 34)
In his translation of the Qur’an, Muhammad Asad writes a footnote in comment on this verse. He explains the case admirably well. It is useful to quote him in full: “It is evident from many authentic traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one’s wife, and said on more than one occasion, ‘Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening’?” (Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim). According to another tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, “Never beat God’s handmaidens.” (Related by Abu Dawood, Nassaie, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban, and Hakim).
When the above Qur’anic verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said, “I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing. What God has willed must be best.” With all this he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife “has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct,” and that it should be done “in such a way as not to cause pain.”
Authentic traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmithi, Abu Dawood, Nassaie and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these traditions, all the authorities stress that this “beating”, if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic — “with a toothbrush, or some such thing”, or even with “a folded handkerchief.” Some of the great Muslim scholar, e.g. Shafie, are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided. They justify this opinion by the Prophet’s personal feelings with regard to this problem. I will quote just one Hadith in support of what Asad says. Muawiyah Al-Qoshairi reports, “I asked God’s messenger about our women and what we may do and what we may not do with them. He said, ‘You may come into her when you wish. You must feed her when you eat and clothe her when you buy clothes. You must not insult her, nor may you hit her’.” (Related by Abu Dawood).
The relationship between man and wife in Islam is not one of obedience in a military sense, as some people would have us understand. It is a caring and loving relationship in which both try their best to take good care of each other. The reader speaks of unreasonable husbands who demand obedience. This is not what is required of a woman. She is to obey her husband in what is fair and reasonable. He may not demand what is neither fair nor reasonable.
The reader asks about slave girls and the Islamic view of those. This is irrelevant in our modern days, when slavery has been eradicated, by the grace of God. We need not go into details here. Space does not allow for one thing. For another, it is irrelevant. I will only say that with regard to slavery Islam had a system which ensured the best treatment of slaves and the eradication of slavery in a short period of time.
Employing more women in business
Q. I am starting a business in my home country in which I am investing my life savings. However, due to various factors I feel that my business will not be successful unless I employ more women than men. My business includes some glamorous aspects, but on these the business utilizes only non-Muslim women employees. May I ask whether there are any Islamic restrictions on employing women with men, considering that no woman has a mahram on the premises.
M.W. Khan, Riyadh
A. I admit that I am surprised at the question. Wherever the reader goes, he will find that all places with mixed staff do not consider it necessary to have members of the families of their women employees on site. Had it been necessary, there would be great difficulties in managing any business or public service. Imagine the difficulties that would need to be addressed if, in every school, women teachers needed to have a man of their family present at school, simply because some of the school staff are men. Had this been necessary many schools would not have been able to function. Besides, if we extend this principle to its logical conclusions, women would need a mahram to accompany them wherever they want to go, including a supermarket, a health clinic, etc.
A woman needs a companion who is a mahram, i.e. her husband or a close relative whom she is not allowed to marry, such as her father or brother, only when she travels and the journey takes more than 24 hours. Scholars say that when a woman needs to travel and she cannot be accompanied by a mahram, then she may travel with “safe companionship”, which means a trustworthy group of travelers who include some women. The mahram as a companion does not have much of a role when it comes to day-to-day activities. Women can go about their business in the normal way as men, as long as they do not have to be in a compromising position with men who are not their close relatives.
This means that a working woman goes about her job in the same way as a man. If she has men as colleagues, then she should not be in a closed room with one man who is a stranger to her. If her working area is a “public” place, which means that people can come in and go out without restriction, then she may receive any member of the public at her work station. If the place has several men and women in attendance, then that is a perfectly acceptable environment.
All the above assumes that Islamic standards of propriety are observed. Thus, Muslim women who are employed should go to work wearing clothes that are acceptable from the Islamic point of view. They must not behave in a way that suggests that they are going to a party, wearing heavy makeup and adorning eye-catching attires.
What worries me in the reader’s question is what he mentions about glamorous aspects to his business, which he does not allow Muslim women to undertake. He does not tell us what he means by glamour, but it is clear that the glamour to which he refers is unacceptable from the Islamic point of view. Otherwise why would he not allow Muslim women to undertake it? If so, he should be very careful. He should inquire whether engaging in such a business is permissible in Islam or not. If it cannot be sanctioned under Islam, then he is well advised to abandon that line of business and seek some other line which carries no such doubtful aspects.
