Most of the time when I go through some material on Islam or the matters and problems it deals with and the solutions it offers I feel sad to know that the people taking part in discussions or debates do either misunderstand the concepts, issues and orders or try to twist them regardless of context and undercurrent message to their own interests, prejudices or grudges, they are unable to explain any reason of.
To talk about the religions of others should not be taken as easy. In my early life I read a book by Tolstoy. He wrote that Islam is a sect or branch of Christianity. I got embarrassed first and then smiled. I could not expect such an ignorance from such a great writer. On some other occasion I read a book and was stunned to read a sentence like this that in the religious or worship places of Muslims they have put the statues of Muhammad and other people and that they are in actual idolaters.
I got at least one lesson from such expressions of ignorance. I stopped talking about the practices of other religions. Still now, even at the things people say from their own mouths, I stop myself believing them true at once.
To know about some religion the best way is to go to the historical records of those times. The religion we find in those records is even half true and half false. The truest form of all religions exits only in the times of their prophets. As soon as the prophets disappear, die or are killed some degrees of the truth they bring get also lost. Today we can't say anything sure about any religion. Islam is the most trustworthy of all religions because it has the immediate records of Prophets life, preaching and preservations.
Most of the time, I hear and read that the Holy Books of other religions were written down and preserved long after the death of Prophets. In the case Islam we see that the Prophet himself is the first one to preserve the records of his preaching, the Holy Quraan.
Now when we have the book of the prophet preserved well, we should consult that book first and then every other thing. The non muslims should not trust even what the muslims say about certain things. If they are genuinely interested in knowing certain thing they should try to read the book with a receptive mind and then decide. What the interpreters say comes after. As a muslim I appreciate and accept the earliest interpreters more than the later ones.
This is what the status of women in islam' should be considered up to and with, I think.
If you are consulting the interpreters of recent years and the living muslims you will find only the status of women in muslims, and further the status of women in Indian mslims, American muslims, Arab Muslims, African Muslims etc.
To judge the status of women in islam first we should consider the status of women in pre Islamic years, then in the contemporary world islam was revealed to the Prophet and then in the modern world. Compare the status of women in all these periods, with respect to the status of women in other parts of the world and then decide which status, in which age given by what country and people is the most suitable, the most natural for women.
I have never been thinking to write any research document. What I am going to write in the following pages is my perception out of my reading all through the years of my student and teaching career. I may not give you examples or references to sources but what I shall write down I hope shall be agreeable.
In the literature and historical documents of the Greek and Roman civilizations we can easily feel that the status of women was that of a inanimate thing. They had no respect and honor and they were used only for sex. Go through the Greek literature and find out what kind of status the women enjoyed in that mother of all civilizations. Go through the Indian civilization prior to Greek civilization and see of what value the women were. Go through the times of Pharaohs' Egypt and find out what did they do with the women. No sanctity of relationship, no divine protection, no place any where.
As I have said earlier I cant provide the references at this time. But if you disagree give me any or at least put in your articles.
What I have said above was the prevalent status of women in all the pre and contemporary islamic world. Even in those times the pre Islamic Arab society was a bit generous towards women. The gruesome picture of the status of women we always provide to the people or readers of coming generations is mostly taken from or based upon the earliest critical approaches towards such topics when their worth was quite unknown to the critics or writers.
We always read somewhere or other that Arabs were illiterate, uncivilized, savage and God knows what and what kind of people. They were sexually pervert, indulged in drinking, careless in eating, rubbish in wearing, querulous in behavior and this and that. And above all they are quoted as habitual killers of their daughters.
When I go through the overviews of pre Islamic arab society the picture seems very much accurate. But when I read the traditions, stories, and records of events of those times I feel greatly exited. I meet some kind of different Arabs. Generosity, bravery, intellectual sharpness and a heaven of good behavioral qualities. I find them true to their words, open to their beliefs, and above all the most straightforward in their actions.
Why there is so great a difference in the previews of critics and my personal perception. The point is not very difficult to understand. The previews or overviews were written to exaggerate the social changes islam brought with it. The purpose of this exaggeration was to focus the reader on Islamic influence, the requirement of that time. To discuss on the cultural and gender issues was not the topics of those times.
It does not mean that the historians or critics of those times were not honest. I simply say again that they were not the topics or issues of those times. The writers and critics cant go beyond the issues of their times. The records and details of events we are saving of certain incident quite honestly shall be considered biased and personally filtered after two or three hundred years ago. Why? because the issues shall be different. Cultural, psychological, social, and good no. of other als are but the output of present times. What branches of knowledge and what means of research the coming generations shall use we don't know. However we can develop and moderate hope that they will consider us as ignorant, dishonest, biased and narrow as we consider the people of last centuries.
About the Arab cultural two things are very important: their language and trade. I have not heard about any other language so structured, refined and constant as Arabic is. Besides the words taken from other languages and that too under some definite and certain rules, all the words have some rule or other. The alphabets are so lightly and sharply different from one another other that I feel strange to think about what minds and tongues there are to speak them distinctly. Above all I think this the most constantly living ancient language. No other language would have remained so unchanged in all these two thousand years as Arabic has. When I read the newspapers in Arabic and then go to some work of the poet of pre Islamic times I find no difference at all. The same words in the same fashion are still beings used.
The changes in language, the phonetic and grammatical changes, I mean, become ultimate and certain when the intellectual and emotional changes take place in the natives or speakers. The more you develop in mind the more you change in accent and sentence structure.
The accent and sentence structure of English in twenty first century is quite different from that of sixteenth century. Simply because the people are more intelligent. They know more about what they want to say, they say, and they have actually said. Because they have not thought only they have also read what others have thought already.
It is very strange that the unchanged grammatical structure of Arabic is appealing to the most modern of minds. There are words up to the mental conditions that are not found even in English. Besides, the written expression is so complete and sharply applied that we have to give their minds another thought.
Again I feel sorry that I am not expert in this field or I must have provided examples. But I believe the people who know about such things can agree to what I have said.
After language there comes trade. In all the historical records we read that Arabs were traders and merchants. Giving concession to this, I must say that the elite class was of merchants and traders. The poor class was of shepherds and breeders. In certain cases we also find them as manufacturers of perfumes and certain other articles of beautification.
Now how these people at the same time can also be savage, uncivilized, ignorant and dark. The markets even in the modern world are the civilized places of areas, cities, countries and continents in the world. It is the ground truth that the countries engaged in trade and merchandise can't be backward and uncivilized. How the uncivilized and backward people can move from city to city and country to country.
The point I want to raise is very simple: the Arabs were not SO uncivilized. The burying of infant living daughters was not practiced all over the Arab society. The without dress circumambulation of Holy Kaaba was also a not a common practice. These were the acts committed by outcaste or caste out people. These types of acts are found in all societies. The most immediate reason behind was poverty. Even in America the psychological or emotional instability, an outward sign of economic poverty, plays a major role in certain odd acts or activities. It doesn't mean that the people of 2301 should consider the whole American nation as a nation of serial killers or child abusers.
Go through the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (saw) you will take a glimpse of the background picture of those days society. Don't pick up any particular saying or tradition; go through the whole of traditions. You will find the Arab women equally free in their choice and career. Their social activities were also quite up to their choice. They were free to do whatever they liked. Even the fields of versification and warfare were not exempt.
Go through Prophet's behavior with his wives. See of what social status they were in their fathers' homes. See how free they were in making their choice. Even the husband of one of Prophet's daughter was a non believer. The Prophet had to give some special time to the community of women. They were free to ask questions and raise objections.
The Prophet on the whole was a spiritual reformer and the reforms he made in the fields of politics, business, and social activities were directly under the divine spiritual rules.
I don't give any reference. I think the references you already know are enough to make you understand what I want to.
The assertion on practical islam in certain parts of non arab muslim countries, however, took place and women were restricted to their homes for the most part of the day. We have to see this type of assertion most of the time in the countries where the cultural traits were not Arabic in origin. They had to accept islam not as a theory but as a practical change in culture and ethics. The previous religions and cultures that were not arab and that were different from Islamic (previously Arab) culture, did not retreat to nothingness and remained dormant under the new Islamic culture.
In India the women were worshipped as goddesses. India is the only country in whose history and tradition I have never read any events of rape and prostitution. The respect associated to women changed into honor and manliness and women were restricted to the limits of houses. This type of status of women is still prevailing in India and Pakistan. The more chase and modest the women the more honorable and respectful the men. Then men put some extra limits on women not to possess them but to provide them security.
Four hundred years ago, I think, with minor deviation, the same trend was prevailing upon the men of European and American societies. The Islamic influence on the other societies was so strong that the countries as far as Indonesia and Cyprus had accepted this status of Islamic woman as their own.
Now, coming to the end of my topic, what the modern civilization has given to the woman. Has it not deprived her of her femininity?
If the old people were using her as a commodity, what do you think about the modern people? Is she not being used as a model or show piece? In the name of liberty, freedom and rights, the politicians and business men have made her a purchasable thing. They have made her a substitute of man, a sub-man. The freedom and liberty are not given to European and American woman in free. In return, she has given her chastity, modesty and very womanliness.
Lying back in my chair I sometimes start looking into the society of 2301. There are no men and women. No houses no children. There is a kind of specie living all over the planet. It resembles very much to a eunuch. Shaveless face with short hair on head, arms so strong but shoulders very narrow, and absolutely no breasts at all. Most of the time, I see them fighting with each other. They quarrel over certain roles in an activity that resembles very much to a present day sex.
Equality doesn't mean similarity. Equality means balance and justice.
