Question:

Although I am not a Muslim, I have great deal of respect for Islam. I felt a little disturbed by some books on Islam, e.g., Anwar Hekmat, Women and the Koran (1997); Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil (1987); G.R. Driver and J.C. Mills, The Assyrian Law (quoted in Hekmat), (1935); Wiebke Walter, Women in Islam (1993).

1. Many scholars quote the Koran to point out inequality between men and women as one of the cardinal principles of the Koran. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands). Koran [4:34]
2. Some scholars have also been critical of Islam from the point of view of inequity to women due to polygyny permitted to men but polyandry [woman having more than one husband] denied to women. [Fatima Mernissi]
3. Some commentators point out that mah’r essentially constitutes a purchase price for a woman and Islam considers the woman as a commodity, and her price is determined by her position. [Anwar Hekmat, p117]. Some scholars trace the Islāmic custom of bride price to the ancient Assyrian word mahiru, meaning price. The same source traces the mah’r to the ancient code of Hammurabi, prevalent in the ancient Arab world. For details, see G.R. Driver and J.C. Mills, The Assyrian Laws, 1935 [quoted in Hekmat, p119]. Hekmat concludes that mahr was a continuation of the ancient system in which an unmarried girl was the property of her father and marriage in Islam is merely a sales transaction.

Answer:

We are pleased to note the seriousness with which you look at certain issues, either from your perspective or as you gathered from the literature you cited. Sorry we have not been able to see the books you referred. So, we are not very sure about their arguments, or their context. However, we take this opportunity to give you our viewpoint that represents the majority Muslim opinion, briefly, of course:

You referred to verse 4:34 of the Qur’ān. That verse certainly establishes work position and responsibility of man in the family. Yet, it never says that man, having become a protector and sustainer (the Qur’ānic word qawwām in fact means administrator) should act as a master, a ruler or an owner. No, not at all. It is the question of common sense that any organization (and the family unit is one) must be headed by someone. What you can argue is who would be most suitable? A man or a woman? The Qur’ānic view is that woman has to perform the most important duty of bearing children, who in case of human being, have to be continuously looked after for years and years. And the best person to tend children is mother – a woman. With that responsibility and most tedious and sensitive assignment, woman had to be relieved of all responsibilities outside home. Hence, the man is to be earner and sustainer. Then, being head of the unit, he has to be obeyed in legitimate matters. Let us also clarify that, like her husband, she is under religious obligation to satisfy sexual demands of her life-partner – unless she is unable to do so for some genuine reasons. Remember, no woman is allowed (ordered!) to accept any order that is contrary to the commands of God. Finally, what woman (as wife, mother, sister and daughter) and the children receive from man is their right, and no special favour.

We wish you see our detailed notes on polygamy, [chapter III], as to why and under what circumstances it was allowed in Islam. You, in your observation (quoting Fatima Mernissi), seem not questioning polygamy. You are rather asking, why not polyandry as well? Would you really suggest polyandry? We do not think any sensible person could make that suggestion. Here, we want to make just one statement. If a woman is allowed even two husbands, there will be no family at all. And, without family (as the basic unit), the civilization is doomed.

We know there have been and are communities, in which the father receives the price of the bride. But this has nothing to do with the Islāmic mah’r. That is never to be received by the father of the bride, but by herself only. It is a security for the bride that man (known to be promiscuous) should think a hundred times before considering a divorce and leaving the widow helpless. With the consummation of the marriage, the mah’r payment (the amount which is set by the bride through her free will at the time of marriage contract) becomes obligatory, and given the exception that a wife is allowed to absolve all or part thereof, there is no way for the man to escape, unless the separation is demanded by the wife, of which she also has the right.

It needs to be further clarified that a woman has all the rights to property ownership, whereas she is not to spend anything even on her own upkeep. That responsibility rests with the husband, no matter if he is poor!

Back to Index Q&A