The plight of women in Arab countries is a sad one. They find themselves between the hammer of Westernization and the anvil of tradition, and it seems the hope of wriggling out between those two problems is no greater than the hope of change in Arab societies in general.
Yet call for change we do, simply because life is fluid and time stops for no one. We must approach change with an open mind. We must take an active role in bringing it about, otherwise it will drag us helplessly behind in its wake.
There are attempts everywhere to hijack the emancipation of women, to tar the very idea with the brush of Western intervention. The term itself conjures up Western ideas of what the role of women should be. But what of Islam’s emancipation of women? Islam was able to combine spiritual development with the moderate regulation of worldly affairs under the umbrella of continuous and progressive reasoning. Why then are there still so many among us who are frightened of change, who resist tackling any important contemporary issues and pretend that all is well with our society.
A satellite channel recently aired a live discussion program with a man who was supposedly a scholar. The program made mostly tedious viewing, with the guest turning it into a lecture to the viewers. Ironically he became rather agitated when several women rang in, even though they were all furiously agreeing with him — which in itself casts some doubt on the integrity of the channel.
His argument in any case was not so much concerned with female emancipation as with countering Western thought, though again the man did not like the term “Islamic thought”.
Still, if you cannot counter thought with thought, then with what do you counter it? How much longer are we going to let ourselves be shackled by the stark black-and-white choice between on the one hand rigid adherence to antiquated notions of what women are or, on the other hand, immersing ourselves totally in Western culture and understanding? In this situation women are nothing but pawns in the game between extreme conservatives and Westernized liberals.
The scholar rejected any and all criticism of tradition, ignoring the fact that even tradition was not always what it is now but developed over time. If tradition is synonymous with religion we had better find a new definition for this term that makes it clear that it is set in stone.
If on the other hand tradition is simply what man himself develops then we should be the first to try and improve it — taking from it what benefits society and leaving what does not. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the caliphs after him all took things from earlier societies in order to develop their own. We must learn to do what they did and always change our situation, learning from the experiences of others and simultaneously holding firm to our fundamental beliefs. If we do not do this then how can we claim that Islam is for all time and every place?
Backward traditions combined with various religious beliefs such as the non-Islamic concept of original sin and Eve’s role in the fall of Adam have all contributed to the suppression of women here. This is particularly glaring in the excessive use of the legal principle known as “Sad Al-Tharaya”, i.e. forbidding actions for fear of future consequences, something akin to the “thin end of the wedge” argument. This rule has been used to keep certain views dominant and hinder the progress of women and, as a result, society as a whole.
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Duhaim says: “We need to re-appraise our understanding of the Shariah — without this we cannot embrace people in our religion nor will they join our religion. We cannot let them restrict the mercy of Allah by prohibiting things for fear of what they might lead to. This must be stressed especially where the person taking the legal decision is following his own desires, or prevalent backward traditions, or has himself a lack of common sense and understanding. The Shariah, with all its rulings is far greater than any such person.”
One of the most important issues that jurisprudence must tackle is the role of the woman in society, particularly their social, political and professional participation. They must make it easier for women to help build their country. This participation is not one we should rush into — rather we must learn from the mistakes of others. Our goal is not to reach a point like that of some Western societies whereby a woman is totally pre-occupied with work, does not see to her children and deprives her body of necessary rest.
In an article published this month, the Deputy Minister of Employment Abdul Wahid Al-Humaid said the criteria for employment for women were as follows: First, that the work suits the woman’s physical and natural disposition; second, that it suits her own qualifications and experience; and third, that it does not come between her and her natural role as a mother and wife.
Perhaps the recent ministerial decisions holds out some hope for our long-cherished dream that one day women will gain their full Islamic rights here. Perhaps then we will no longer have to listen to views like the following comment by a so-called scholar: “Women must always follow men, for men are more highly regarded in this world and the next; look at inheritance, legal matters, polygamy and divorce.” God help us when such backward and primitive views prevail. They serve only to stain our great religion.
Women are given a lesser share of the inheritance only because they have the sole right to that money, in contrast to men, who must share it with their spouses. Legal matters also are not so black and white. In certain instances one female witness serves against two male witnesses. The issue of polygamy, a long-discussed one, serves in times of war for example, where the number of male providers is vastly reduced. As for the promised virgins in Paradise, Dr. Al-Bouti says, “Women also are promised men in Paradise, but due to their natural shyness it would not be suitable to mention these men in the Qur’an.” I personally do not agree with this, as I believe women are only naturally inclined toward one man, but who knows what lies in store for women in Paradise? Bearing in mind that everyone who enters Paradise will be fully satisfied, who knows? But how can we deduce from this that men are superior to women?
Rather than prohibit the emancipation of women, let us redefine it and show how it can be used to gain women their social and legal rights.
One question still remains: What are women to do if the person who denies them their legal rights is a member of their own family? How many women are ashamed or scared to ask for their inheritance or their right to choose their husband? How many women are beaten by a husband and rashly divorced, how many find themselves an unequal partner in a polygamous marriage?
We must teach our new generation of boys and girls about their rights and their equal standing in all matters in order to quash prehistoric ideas that tell us a woman’s voice and her shadow are both prohibited. Note that I do not ask whether it is forbidden for their face and hands to be shown, though I do point to the fact that it would be passing strange given that they must be revealed during Haj and Umrah.
There is no need for us to focus solely on this issue. I would only say that there is a Hadith telling us that the blood of a believer — in our times, the blood of an officer — is dearer to Allah than the Ka’aba itself. The face of a woman, on the other hand, is neither dearer than the Ka’aba nor is it dearer than our traditions.
(Layla Al-Ahdab is director, Al-Raya Development Center.)
