SHARI’AH, WOMEN AND
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
Asghar Ai Engineer
In the last few days
there has been disturbing news of a Muslim woman Mukhtaran
Mai in Pakistani part of
Similarly few persons
raped Mukhtaran Mai in
In Mukhtaran Mai’s case whole state machinery was ranged
against a helpless woman to deny her justice. All this raises important
question: what is the place of women in Muslim societies? The Muslim men never
tire of repeating that Islam gave women rights and human dignity they deserve
and also keep her wrapped up in veil to ‘protect’ her chastity and on the
other, readily condone such disgraceful treatment in the society. In almost all
Muslim countries (I would hesitate to call them ‘Islamic’ countries as usually
they are referred to) women is treated as secondary to
men or even worse. The Taliban even denied her right to education and closed
down all schools meant for girls and disallowed them to work and earn their
livings even when there was no man member in the house.
The Saudis do not
allow women to drive cars and deny them right to vote even in Municipal
elections. In
They dub all
activities outside home as ‘un-Islamic’ and issues fatwas. Mukhraran
Mai was raped at the instance of village panchayat
simply because her brother was guilty. Such punishment cannot be given in Islam
even if she was guilty of some serious crime, much less for what her brother
did. Yet not only the government remained silent spectator but even took steps
against her.
The question is
whether the Muslim ‘ulama consider all this as
Islamic (which no one even with elementary knowledge of Islam would uphold as
Islamic) or connive at these horrific acts against women because they are men.
In India too all Hanafi and Shafi’i
‘ulama consider triple divorce as bid’ah
(i.e. sinful) and yet while holding such divorce valid according to their
school of law never ever launched campaign against it and never tried to
educate Muslim men that they should avoid this form of divorce as it is sinful
and they should resort to other forms of divorce like talaq-i-sunnah or talaq-i-hasan or
ahsan which were approved by the Qur’an or the Prophet’s sunnah.
Whenever the case of triple divorce came to them they would decree that his
divorced wife has now become haram (prohibited) to him.
We can conclude from
all this happening in Muslim countries that to our ‘ulama
are more committed to patriarchy and patriarchal values than to Islam. In North
West Frontier province where Muttaheda Mahaz, an Islamic Front, has won elections and formed the
government, maximum number of such cases take place and yet these ‘ulama who agitated for enforcing shari’ah
rule in this province keep silent when such atrocities are committed against
women. Even most conservative shari’ah law would not
approve of shooting down a woman if she is found to have relations with any
stranger and yet ‘ulama keep quiet at such incidents
and do not try to educate men against such atrocities.
Thus the commitment
to Islam is skin deep when it comes to women’s rights. The shari’ah
itself is a result of patriarchal interpretation of the Holy Qur’an and even patriarchally
loaded shari’ah also is ignored when it comes to
persecuting women and depriving them of their rights. There is nothing in the Qur’an which prohibits women from dealing with men other
than those who are prohibited to her for marriage and yet in several Muslim
societies she is not allowed to deal with them in any manner in the name of
Islam.
Thus all of us Muslims
need to seriously reflect upon condition of women in Muslim societies. The Qur’an gave her all the rights which modern societies have
given her in the beginning of twentieth century and yet she never enjoyed these
rights except for a short period when the Prophet (PBUH) was alive and until
the Caliphate lasted for 30 years. With the Umayyad period she began to loose
her rights until she was completely subjugated and became confined to four
walls of her house and this began to be considered as her highest virtue.
It is now that women
are getting educated and becoming aware of their Islamic rights and challenging
medieval interpretations laded with patriarchal values and agitating for their
rights. In
In western countries
now Muslim women have taken yet another step – leading the mixed congregational
prayer and delivering Friday sermon. After Amina Wadood now another Muslim woman from New York Pamela Taylor
led mixed congregational prayer in
Now a large number of
Muslims live in non-Muslim countries and face new dilemmas every day and for
which there are no answers in conventional shari’ah
books or they conflict with law of the land or modern social ethos. This also
necessitates a serious reflection on the state of affairs of Muslim law by
committed scholars to Islam. The traditional ulama
are by and large unfit for the job. Only those who have in depth knowledge of
the Qur’an, hadith and
early Islamic history and process of evolution of shari’ah
law can do justice to Muslim women’s question in modern times.
The
blanket assumption that shari’ah is divine and hence
unchangeable has to be contested. This is the popular
view in the Muslim world. At the cost of repetition I would like to assert that
such a view is misplaced. Shari’ah law is a result of
man interpretation of divine injunctions and it took several centuries to
evolve. The law makers faced new problems and new situations and provided for
it through analogical reasoning (qiyas) and consensus
(ijma’) among ‘ulama for
those problems for which they did not find any answers in divine sources. This
is the reason why there are differences in various schools of law (madhahib) like Hanafi, Shafi’I, Maliki, Hanbali, Ja’fari, Isma’ili, Zaidi, Zahiri and so on. There were even
more schools which did not survive.
This became possible
for two main reasons: absence of the concept of priesthood in Islam and the Qur’anic doctrine of freedom of conscience (2: The early jurists were very well aware of
this and hence developed different schools using different interpretations of
the divine sources or using different ahadith
(reports of Prophet’s sayings). Some used one hadith
whole others rejected it in favour of the other. Or some used one Qur’anic injunction and some hadith
giving its interpretation while others used different interpretation using some
other hadith.
In some matters one
imam was more liberal while in other matter the other imam took more favourable
view for women. That is why many modernists and even traditional ‘ulama suggest that one can borrow from another school if
ones own school creates problem for a woman. This is what could have been done
in case of Imrana affair also. As the Hanafi school maintains that even in case rape by her
father or father- in-law a woman cannot retain her marital tie with her husband
one could have taken help of Shafi’i school which takes
different view.
Again the problem is
with our traditional mullahs that they find nothing unnatural in taking such
positions which conflict with modern societal values and enhanced awareness of
women. The village panchayat consulted a local maulavi who with his half backed knowledge of shari’ah law even decreed that Imrana
should marry the rapist father-in-law and treat her own husband as her ‘son’.
This was beyond belief and utterly shocking that any such fatwa can be issued. But then our rural areas are far behind in
special matters. Here one should not take religious but sociological view of
the matter. This is what happens in backward social milieu.
Everyone will agree
that to issue any injunction in the name of shari’ah
is a highly responsible job. The mullahs in rural areas have half backed
knowledge and give their opinion more on the basis of their bias then on the
basis of proper knowledge. In fact the
Mullah consulted based his opinion on the Qur’anic
verse 24:3 which says, “ The adulterer cannot have sexual relations with any
but an adulteress or an idolatress and the adulteress, none can have sexual
relations with her but an adulterer or an idolater: and it is forbidden to
believers.”
Since in the Imrana case father-in-law had intercourse or adultery with
her it was decreed by the maulavi that she now live
with her father-in- law and treat her husband as her son an opinion which was
totally wrong and immoral. According to the Qur’anic
verse both should be guilty of adultery and here Imrana
is not guilty of adultery but victim of rape. This verse cannot apply to her at
all. Moreover this verse is of the general nature and does not deal with
daughter-in-law, father-in-law situation. One will have to think twice before
applying it in such a situation.
Now
question arises about the fatwa’
issued by Darul ‘Uloom Deoband which is entirely of different category. One
cannot say that this fatwa was issued
by someone having no knowledge or half baked knowledge. According to this fatwa she should separate from her
husband. After adultery by her father-in-law she can no more live with her
husband as he happens to be his son and according to the Qur’an
prohibiting marriage with the wife of the father. The Qur’anic
verse says “And marry not women whom your father
married, except what has already passed. This surely is indecent and hateful;
and it is an evil way.” (
This verse obviously
refers to the jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic)
practice of marrying father’s wives other than ones own mother. It was indeed a
hateful practice. It appears it was on this basis that Darul
Ulum Deoband issued this fatwah. This is
also based on Imam Abu Hanifa’s ruling that when a
woman has sex after marriage with her husband she becomes mother of all his
children and so can’t marry his son, even though that son may be from previous
marriage.
The Darul Ulum fatwah may have taken both – above Qur’anic
verse as well as Imam Abu Hanifa’s ruling into
account and issued the edict. But a fatwah in favour
or against any person could be issued not only on general rulings but after
through investigation of the case concerned. In Imrana’s
case it was rape, not marriage or sex with consent. How such ruling can apply
to her case?
Only thing that can
be said in favour of Deoband is that fatwah was issued
without any knowledge of a specific case. One, however, does not know whether
with the knowledge of the specific case same fatwah would have been issued or
not. It is only a matter of conjecture. It is also to be noted that Imam Shafi’i differs from Imam Abu Hanifa
in his ruling on similar case. According to Imam Shafi’I
what is haram and impure i.e. rape cannot annul what
is halal (legitimate) and pure i.e. relationship.
This marriage which is legitimate relationship cannot be annulled by an act of
rape.
Thus in no case Imrana’s marriage with her husband can be dissolved just
because she was raped by her father-in-law. Even if fatwah is issued according to Hanafi ruling, in
view of gravity of the case (a woman is married with five children) and as far
as possible such a long established perfectly legitimate relationship should
not be dissolved specially when it is case of rape on
unwilling woman.
Now the personal law
board’s inquiry that no such rape has taken place and it is likely to be false
allegation due to property dispute between son and father, is an altogether different
matter. It should be left for the courts to decide, no such hurried conclusion
should be drawn on wither side.
We are more concerned
with the fatwa rather than
allegations and counter-allegations from both sides. Let us assume the rape
took place and then only we can discuss the merit of the fatwa. My point is that in modern times one has to bear in mind the
rights of women. One cannot simply quote a ruling given more than thousand
years ago to decide a case in twenty first century. For justice to be done one
has to keep concrete circumstances into mind.
All women issues
unfortunately get politicised and becomes a game in minority-majority politics.
Majority communal leaders rush in to demand uniform civil code in any case
related to minority women, be it Shah Bano case or Imrana case, the minority community leaders also rush with
equal haste to accuse majority community of being anti-Muslim and showing false
sympathy for Muslim women. The male leadership of both the communities do not
care whether justice is being done to the woman victim or not.
Women thus invariably
become victim of male politics, particularly so in
Men want to retain
their dominant position in any case. During Shah Bano
movement referring to the verse 2:241 it was maintained by some ‘ulama that even one time provision was obligatory only on
pious Muslims referring to the word muttaqin
and not on all Muslims. This shows strong bias against women of their own
community. Thus it is men who give enough opportunity to anti-Islamic forces to
ridicule treatment of ‘Islam’ towards women. In fact it is men to blame for
such interpretations of the Holy Qur’an.
Many verses in the Qur’an were revealed when believers men or women came to
the Prophet PBUH) asking certain questions and revelation brought answers in
that particular context. The whole asbab
al-nuzul (occasions of revelation) literature is
there on the subject and many shar’i positions were
based on such revelations. But now keeping these asbab al-nuzul in
mind we have to reinterpreted these Qur’anic verses.
We have to go by Qur’anic values rather than certain verses relating to
concrete historical conditions then prevailing. The most central value in the Qur’an is justice, followed by ihsan
and rahmah (compassion) and hikmah (wisdom). These values will override all
juristic decisions or rulings of the great imams. Taking contemporary
conditions into account one must apply these values.
If this method is
followed then in the Imrana case no such fatwa should have been issued compelling
her to dissolve her marriage. As in the case of Shah Bano
(Shah Bano was compelled to disown the Supreme Court
judgement in her favour and declare that she would stick to shar’ah
rather than accept Supreme Court ruling) Imrana was
also compelled to say she would follow shari’ah
ruling and be prepared to dissolve her marriage.
It is vitally
necessary to train our ‘ulama in modern social
sciences and muftis in modern principles of jurisprudence so that they can be
more careful in issuing ruling rather than simply repeating what this or that
Imam said. One should also thoroughly understand how the great imams applied
the principles usul al-fiqh
in their own circumstances and on what basis they applied those principles to
their own circumstances and how modern jurisprudence evolved and how certain
fundamental values were applied to modern conditions. This comparative study
will immensely benefit our ‘ulama, particularly those
who deal with shar’i rulings.
But even the higher madrasas of learning only repeat what was evolved during
early period of Islam. And this despite the fact that Holy
Prophet specifically permitted ijtihad (intellectual
efforts to re-apply Islamic principles to new conditions). Even the
great Imams like Abu Hanifa and Shafi’i
faced new situations and challenges and they exerted themselves to apply Qur’anic provisions to these new situations and looked for ahadith to find answers and when they could not,
they used analogical reasoning to find answers.
The whole process
needs to be imitated today rather than their rulings, to find answers to modern
problems. One will have to clearly identify what is fundamental and what is
incidental to the situation and then decide on the ruling. In Indian
subcontinent and specially in
Now Muslim women are becoming more aware due to spread
of modern education and they are challenging all the decisions of Muslim
personal law board and they have challenged the present fatwa too. It is a healthy sign and one hopes now women will not
accept male domination in the name of Islam and will work for realisation of
truly Qur’anic status of equality with men. We have
to replace earlier juristic rulings with modern laws based more on Qur’an than on earlier opinions.
July 8th,
2005