Status of women in Islam

THE status of women in society is neither a new issue nor is it a fully settled one. The position of Islam on this issue has been among the subjects presented to the western reader with the least objectivity. The teachings of Islam are based essentially on the Holy Quran (God’s revelation) and Hadith (elaboration by Prophet Muhammad).

The Quran and Hadith, properly and unbiasedly understood, provide the basic source of authentication for any position or view, which is attributed to Islam.

In the midst of the darkness that engulfed the world, the divine revelation echoed in the wide desert of Arabia with a fresh, noble, and universal message to humanity: “O Mankind, keep your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate (of same kind) and from them twain has spread a multitude of men and women” (4: 1). It is believed that there is no text, old or new, that deals with the humanity of the woman from all aspects with such amazing brevity, eloquence, depth, and originality as this divine decree.

Stressing this noble and natural conception, the Holy Quran states: “The Creator of heavens and earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves ...” (2:1 1)

And Allah has given you mates of your own nature, and has given you from your mates, children and grandchildren, and has made provision of good things for you. Is it then in vanity that they believe and in the grace of God that they disbelieve? (16:72) The Quran provides clear-cut evidence that woman is completely equated with man in the sight of God in terms of her rights and responsibilities.

Despite the social acceptance of female infanticide among some Arabian tribes, the Quran forbade this custom, and considered it a crime like any other murder. “And when the female (infant) buried alive — is questioned, for what crime she was killed.” (81:8-9). Far from saving the girl’s life so that she may later suffer injustice and inequality, Islam requires kind and just treatment for her.

Among the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in this regard are the following: Whosoever has a daughter and he does not bury her alive, does not insult her, and does not favour his son over her, God will enter him into Paradise. (Ibn Hanbal). Whosoever supports two daughters till they mature, he and I will come in the day of judgment as this (and he pointed with his two fingers held together). A similar Hadith deals with one who supports two sisters. (Ibn-Hanbal).

The Quran clearly indicates that marriage is a sharing between the two halves of society, and that its objectives, beside perpetuating human life, are emotional well-being and spiritual harmony. Its basis is love and mercy. Among the most impressive verses in the Quran about marriage is the following: “And among His signs is this: That He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest, peace of mind in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Lo, herein indeed are signs for people who reflect.” (30:2 1).

According to Islamic Law, women cannot be forced to marry anyone without their consent. Ibn Abbas reported that a girl came to the Holy Prophet and complained that her father had forced her to marry someone without her consent. The Messenger of God gave her the choice ... between accepting the marriage or invalidating it. (Ibn Hanbal). According to another version, the girl said: “Actually I accept this marriage but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them)” (Ibn Maja).

Islam considered kindness to parents next to the worship of God. “And we have enjoined upon man (to be good) to his parents: His mother bears him in weakness upon weakness...” (31:14) (See also 46:15, 29:8). The Quran has a special recommendation for the good treatment of mothers: “Your Lord has decreed that you worship none save Him, and that you be kind to your parents...” (17:23).

A man came to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) asking: “O Messenger of God, who among the people is the most worthy of my good company?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man said, “Then who else?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man asked, “Then who else?” Only then did the Prophet say, “Your father.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Islam decreed a right of which woman was deprived both before Islam and after it (even as late as this century), the right of independent ownership. According to Islamic law, woman’s right to her money, real estate, or other properties is fully acknowledged. This right undergoes no change whether she is single or married. She retains her full rights to buy, sell, mortgage or lease any or all her properties.

Any close look into the history of the Islamic civilization will reveal a clear evidence of woman’s equality with man in what we call today “political rights”. This includes the right of election as well as nomination to political offices. It also includes woman’s right to participate in public affairs. affairs. Both in the Quran and in Islamic history we find examples of women who participated in serious discussions and argued even with the Prophet (pbuh) himself.

During the Caliphate of Omar Ibn al-Khattab, a woman argued with him in the mosque, proved her point, and caused him to declare in the presence of people: “A woman is right and Omar is wrong.”

The history of Muslims is rich with women of great achievements in all walks of life from as early as the seventh century. It is impossible for anyone to justify any mistreatment of woman by any decree of rule embodied in the Islamic law, nor could anyone dare to cancel, reduce, or distort the clear-cut legal rights of women given in Islamic Law. Throughout history, the reputation, chastity and maternal role of Muslim women were objects of admiration by impartial observers.

In Islam a compassionate and dignified status was conferred on women, not because it reflects the environment of the seventh century, but because of its intrinsic truthfulness.

If this indicates anything, it is the divine origin of the Quran and the truthfulness of the message of Islam — a message which established such humane principles which neither grew obsolete during the course of time, nor after these many centuries and nor can become obsolete in the future. After all, this is the message of the All-Wise and All-knowing God Whose wisdom and knowledge are far beyond the ultimate in human thought and progress.

State of relations with the US

MUCH has been written on the significance of Manmohan Singh’s July visit to the US and on the likely impact of the defence agreements signed in the context of Pakistan’s security environment. However, one aspect that has not received the attention it deserved has been the negative remarks that the Indian prime minister made during his meetings with US media, policy planners and other influential elements regarding Pakistan’s nuclear capability and terrorism.

The statement by Manmohan Singh that Pakistan’s nuclear assets were likely to fall into the hands of extremists, and the on the rise of religious extremism merit serious concern. He has very deftly played on the apprehensions of the US administration about Pakistan nuclear programme, its proliferation policies and the rise of extremism. Expressing fears that Pakistan’s nuclear assets could “fall into the hands of jihadi elements” posing a serious problem, he ominously suggested “credible solutions” without identifying them.

Similarly, rejecting the proposition that Pakistan could qualify for a similar nuclear deal with Washington as with India, he invited attention to the “role that terrorist elements have played in the last few years in the history of Pakistan”. He was of the view that the Al Qaeda network still had a significant base in Pakistan. He said, that the Taliban were “the creation of Pakistani extremists, the Wahabi Islam which has flourished. Thousands and thousands of madressahs were set up to preach this jihad based of hatred to other religions.”

The statements exploiting the US paranoia with terrorism and nuclear proliferation were subtly calibrated to have maximum impact. Reference to the “role that terrorist elements have played in the last few years in the history of Pakistan”; and “the reckless proliferation” in the region “in disregard of all international obligations” were calculated to heighten US concern on the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan. He also faulted Pakistan on its democratic credentials stating that “Pakistan is not a democracy in the sense that we know and you know.”

Manmohan Singh has played on the fears of Americans in a very effective way. His words were not a one-time aberration, but part of a calculated move to alert and alarm American public opinion to the perceived inherent instability in Pakistan and the country’s vulnerability to extremist elements — a nightmare scenario, both in terms of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Our assurances that an elaborate command and control mechanism institutionalized in the shape of the National Command Authority has been in place since 2000, has failed to meet US concerns at the public level.

It is no secret that the Bush administration in recognition of Musharraf’s all-out support to the US in its “war on terror” has not pursued the issue of A Q Khan’s “illicit nuclear secrets bazaar”, to the chagrin of nonproliferation zealots. The concerned lobby, however, has remained active and accused Bush of neglecting US nonproliferation objectives in pursuit of its war on terror. Reports have been appearing from different sources that Pakistan’s weak political, social and democratic institutions make nuclear Pakistan a critical security risk.

There has also been great concern about the rise of radical Islam in Pakistan and after 7/7. Repeated reports from different sources of Pakistan’s alleged involvement, albeit, indirect has heightened these concerns. A state department report has referred to Pakistan’s poor human rights record, a military-dominated political system and a corrupt judiciary. The US intelligence community is also unhappy that Pakistan has not allayed US fears of Dr. Khan’s range of global sales network, and has declined to make him available for direct interrogation.

The latest Congressional Research Service report has recommended that US should seek stronger adherence from Pakistan to nuclear nonproliferation as a price for obtaining high valued military equipment. To this context is added a survey by the Pew Global Project that found that more than 50 per cent of Pakistanis were sympathetic to Osama bin Ladan, up by six per cent over the last two years.

In short, sceptics in the US regard Pakistan a dilemma for the United States. The evidence of this mood is available from press commentaries that have been appearing frequently, doubting Musharraf’s commitment to fighting terrorism and his alleged half-hearted measures in containing fundamentalism.

The Los Angeles Times in an editorial comment caustically observed that “President Pervez Musharraf needs to ensure that Pakistan is known for exports other than terrorism”. It was alleged that “Musharraf is unable, or unwilling, to confront the terrorists in his midst.”

Similarly the New York Times, in an editorial last month held Musharraf responsible for the Afghan government’s failure to curb the Taliban. Calling him “frustratingly selective” in his help to the US forces, the editorial observed that “He has been an intermittent collaborator in the fight against international terrorism rather than a fully committed ally.”

A recent study by Stratfor — a Washington based news analysis service — reflected the concerns of sceptics in the US establishment, stating “delay obfuscation, and overt obstructionism to dismantle the Al Qaeda structure in Pakistan will no longer be tolerated.” The report concluded that with the growing ties with India and tentative negotiations with Iran, “the Musharraf regime’s geopolitical importance to the United States will diminish leaving the regime as a potential member of the ‘outposts of tyranny’, rather than a close anti-terrorism ally.”

An analyst for the Washington Post similarly castigated US bureaucracy for “foolishly persist(ing) in treating Pakistan and India as equals. That persistence refuses to recognize the Cold War is over and that, while Pakistan is an important short term ally in defeating Al Qaeda and Taliban, India is vastly more in the long-term strategic battle against global terrorism and nonproliferation.”

US undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns, said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had reaffirmed “the central importance of Pakistan to the United States, as a strategic partner for us in the war on terrorism”, while India has “one of our most important partners worldwide.”

These observations should set our policy planners thinking about strategy to face the situation when US zeal for countering terrorism diminishes and attention is focused on nonproliferation. Regrettably, official circles in Pakistan refuse to face the reality that Pakistan’s relations with the US are of one dimensional and could turn brittle. We must pay heed to the wake up call and recognize that in the bilateral context, we are no match for India. While the US is committed “to help India become a major power in the 21st century”, and has entered into a series of strategic partnership agreements, we only seem to have telephonic assurances from Bush and Ms Rice of Washington’s continued friendship.

While the Americans may be having reservations regarding wholehearted Pakistan’s support, people here are still haunted by a sense of betrayal they feel on Washington’s role in the 1971 war with India and later its abandonment of Pakistan after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in the 1980s. These instances do not inspire much confidence among Pakistanis regarding US assurances of a credible and durable relationship. This trust deficit has the potential to upset mutual expectations and calculations of a long-term relationship and should give us pause for reflection.

The writer is a former ambassador.

A natural selection

THE modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has taken it on the chin recently. Public opinion surveys suggest that only about one in 10 Americans believe that life developed through purely natural processes, without divine assistance, as evolution posits.

Over the last year, state and local school boards across the country have decided to open their biology classes to supernatural explanations for life. A few weeks ago, President Bush added his voice to the chorus, saying schools should teach intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution.

Americans simply don’t find Darwinism very appealing. According to modern Darwinists, random genetic variations chosen in a survival-of-the-fittest process created all living things, even humans — with nothing guaranteeing our emergence at the top of the heap. Darwinism is not a comforting world view for conscious, egotistical beings like us.

Humans are mammals with a sense of purpose. That is our nature. Many theories of modern science have challenged our sense of purpose. Astronomy has moved us from the centre of a finite universe to the periphery of a minor galaxy in a vast and expanding universe, which may itself be only one of many universes and merely a blip in time that came from and will return to nothingness. Geology and paleontology have pushed back our origins beyond any meaningful comprehension. Darwinism leaves life itself to chance. No wonder people rebel against such ideas.

Intelligent design, despite its proponents’ claims to the contrary, isn’t modern science. It’s part of that rebellion against it. Scientists look for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Their best explanations, if they survive rigorous testing, become scientific theories.

Intelligent design, in contrast, is a critique of all that. Its proponents may challenge the sufficiency of evolutionary explanations for the origin of species but they have not — and cannot — offer testable alternative explanations. The best they can offer is the premise that, if no natural explanation suffices, then God must have done it. Maybe God did do it, but if so, it’s beyond science.

This is where lots of people would like to be: beyond science. According to doctrinaire Darwinism, we arose from the muck by chance, we struggled to exist, we will return to dust and probably everything that can remember us or be influenced by our efforts ultimately will end. Intelligent design, on the other hand, posits that we came from a designer who transcends nature’s limits and offers us hope that we will live beyond those limits.

It should come as little surprise which of these alternatives many Americans choose to believe and want to teach to their children — especially if they’re handed reasons to doubt Darwinism by credentialled scholars such as those in the intelligent design movement. President Bush wants schools to offer hope for eternity alongside Darwinism. People prefer purpose in their origins; they see purposefulness in nature. No wonder they want it taught in their schools. But that does not make it science.

Science is a particular way of looking at natural phenomena. It seeks testable, repeatable - and therefore exploitable - explanations. That is why science is valuable. It tells us how to use nature. What we know about evolution allows us to combat pathogens by discovering ways to disable or eliminate them.

What we know about evolution allows us to understand ecological relationships and preserve habitats. What we know about evolution allows us to explore genetic relationships and push the frontiers of biotechnology.

Whether or not we like science, we need it — and the theory of evolution is part of the package. Modern biologists looking at nature through the lens of Darwinism have transformed our lives through breakthroughs in medicine, agriculture and genetics.

As a critique of science, intelligent design could have a place in the classroom too — but not as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Rather, good biology teachers could use issues raised by the intelligent design movement to help their classes better understand Darwinism.

In the end, science students must learn how to see nature as scientists see it. Anything else would be ... purposeless. —Dawn/Los Angeles Times Service

The writer is a historian of law, science and medicine at the University of Georgia. His book, “Summer for the Gods” won the Pulitzer Prize in history in 1998.