Gender equality in Islam

ADAM was the first man, and Eve the first woman created by God. Thus, from the beginning of time, man and woman were a pair and companions for each other: “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female...” (49:13)

It is a general belief in the West that women are considered inferior to men in Islam. This belief is based on their ignorance of what the Quran and the Traditions say on this matter. As a matter of fact, Islam is the only system that ensures equality between the two genders. Men and women are regarded equal keeping in view their different nature and particular disposition. A woman’s rights and responsibilities are equal to those of a man yet not alike. Their roles are different yet this does not imply that one is inferior to the other.

The most authentic expression of equality in Islam is seen, when unlike other faiths, Islam blames Adam along with Eve for the first sin. They both gave in to temptation and committed a sin: “We said: ‘O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will, but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression. Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: fall down one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time.” (2: 35, 36)

In Islam, both men and women can rise in spiritual eminence. The greatest honour bestowed on man by God is Divine Revelation. Along with men, women have also received the gift of Divine Revelation: “Behold! The angels said: ‘O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee, chosen thee above the women of all nations’.” (3: 42) “Behold! We sent to thy mother, by inspiration, the message:” (20: 38) “So We sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses...” (28: 7)

In Islam, both men and women will be equally rewarded for their good and righteous deeds in the present world as well as in the hereafter: “Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily, to him will We give a new life, a life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions.” (16: 97)

“For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.” (33: 35)

A woman being equal to man has along with food, clothing, and shelter, the right to be educated. The Prophet declared that it is incumbent on every Muslim male and female to pursue knowledge. It being the touchstone of civilized society, Islam allows no discrimination in its attainment. The following is a well known Tradition of the Prophet that describes the significance of education for both men and women: “Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah said, ‘Search for knowledge is compulsory upon every Muslim man and woman.’”

Both men and women have a right to inherit from their parents and near relatives: “From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, a determinate share.” (4: 7)

A woman’s right of inheritance is protected under the law. If the deceased wishes to deprive a female heir by giving her share to another relative, he will be prohibited to do so under Islamic law.

Her right though protected, her share is half of that of a man. This is because of the quantum of financial responsibilities that rest on a man as breadwinner of the family. Apart from one or two exceptions, a man has to provide for his family and needy relatives and has also to make charitable contributions in accordance with his wealth for the benefit of society at large.

A woman is, on the other hand, provided for and is financially secure. As a daughter, the father provides her for; as a wife the husband provides her for; and as a mother her son is responsible for her financial security. Due to this security, and absence of any financial responsibilities, a woman’s share in inheritance is half of that of a man.

A woman has every right to enter contractual agreements, and participate in affairs of commerce. She has the right to earn and derive benefit from her earnings: “...To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn...” (4: 32)

History reveals that women were active participants in public life along with early Muslims. They were especially active in times of emergency and war, nursing the sick and wounded, preparing supplies, etc.

A woman’s life, property and honour are sacred in Islam: “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, (to support their allegation), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors...” (24: 4) The penalty imposed on her for an offence committed is equal to that of a man. Similarly, her right to compensation in case of suffering harm is equal to that of a man.

Women are held equally liable as men regarding offences of both civil and criminal nature. An example is that of theft liable to hadd. The charge proved, be it man or woman, the following punishment is inflicted: “As to the thief, male or female — cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of Allah, for their crime: and Allah is exalted in power.” (5: 38)

Same is the case in inflicting punishment for adultery: “The women and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the last day: and let a party of the believers witness this punishment.” (24: 2)

Women are also entitled to certain privileges, which have not been granted to men. She is exempted from performing some religious duties, like praying and keeping fast during menstruation and in times of confinement. She is under no obligation to offer Friday prayers in a congregation.

Women of western society had to fight for their rights, and due recognition was given to them after a long period of perseverance and active tussle with the opposite gender. They acquired their rights by force, unlike Muslim women who acquired their rights by Divine law.

Muslim women were not subject to the hardships their counterparts in the West had to face and overcome. Protection, education, respect, and freedom of speech made women prominent members of Muslim society at a time when women of the West were captives of ignorance and exploitation. Islam has preserved their separate identity and distinct qualities that make them equal but not identical to men.

A precipitate act by Islamabad

AT the invitation of the American Jewish Congress (ACJ), President Pervez Musharraf has agreed to address the leaders of the Jewish community in New York on September 17. The chairman of the ACJ, Jack Rosen, has said that it would be a historic event that may mark a turning point in relations between the Muslim and Jewish communities.

President Musharraf’s decision to address the American Jewish community has not evoked a negative public reaction in Pakistan and even the opposition leaders who are generally critical of his foreign policy objectives seem reconciled to the idea. This signifies that whereas the people of Pakistan, by and large, are against the normalization of relations with Israel, prior to the resolution of the Palestinian problem, they are not averse to seeking reconciliation and peace with the Jews. In other words, they understand the difference between Judaism and political Zionism.

However, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, in Istanbul on September 1 not only evoked an adverse reaction in Pakistan; it has also angered many Arab leaders, particularly the Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority’s Information Minister Nabil Shaath and senior officials of the Palestinian foreign ministry have reacted angrily to Pakistan’s decision to establish contacts with Israel describing it as premature and very harmful to the Palestinian cause. One of these officials has even alleged that Pakistan’s move was in violation of the OIC’s decision barring the member states from normalizing relations with Israel before the creation of a viable Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital.

Responding to the criticism against the Kasuri-Shalom meeting in Istanbul, President Musharraf said “Pakistan will not recognize Israel until the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.” It may, however, be mentioned that foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri’s ill-advised meeting with the Israeli foreign minister, in the full glare of television cameras, has already accorded de facto recognition to the Zionist entity leaving no option but to accept it as a fait accompli. It may be pertinent to mention that after the Istanbul meeting the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, also told the reporters that he hoped that the meeting with the foreign minister of Pakistan Mr Khurshid Kasuri, would lead to “full diplomatic relations with Pakistan”.

It follows from this that the Istanbul meeting was not merely an ‘engagement’ with Israel, as claimed by the officials in Islamabad. In the past, contacts between Pakistan and Israel were only a matter of speculation, as they were kept under wraps.

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the Istanbul meeting was aimed at paving the way for formal contacts between Islamabad and Tel Aviv, on a regular basis, so that they may facilitate Pakistan and Israeli settlement and eventually lead to Israel’s formal recognition. Needless to say, an attempt to disrupt this move now or later would entail the risk of undesirable consequences for Pakistan.

Under international law, recognition of a state can either be formal or implied. Formal recognition is conveyed to the state concerned by means of an express notification and implied recognition takes place through acts which, although not referring expressly to recognition, leaves no doubt as to the intention of doing so. Such acts are considered as modes of recognition and, therefore, extreme care is exercised by the states to avoid implied recognition through precipitate actions. The policy-makers in Pakistan seem to have missed this important point.

In his statement made to the press after his meeting in Istanbul, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, stated that the Istanbul “meeting does not mean recognition. That stage will come following progress towards the solution of the Palestinian problem.” As recognition is a matter of intention, this statement leaves no doubt about Pakistan’s readiness to recognize Israel. It may, however, be mentioned that the recognition of a state is neither a contractual arrangement nor a political concession and as such under international law it is considered improper to make the recognition subject to conditions.

Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s argument that Pakistan’s present engagement with Israel would allow it to play an active role in resolving the Palestinian problem is rather far-fetched. Such impracticable ideas would only complicate matters further. However, it seems that it was meant only to limit the backlash from the people of Pakistan.

Given Israel’s deep antipathy towards the Palestinians, it is anybody’s guess if Pakistan would be able to play a meaningful role in the resolution of the Palestinian problem.

The only viable option for Israel is to take bold steps to resolve the Palestinian problem on the basis of the UN Security Council resolutions, which are the only legal framework for a just and honourable solution of this conflict.

It may also be noted that the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Israel by four major Islamic countries — Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Mauritania — and trade links with Morocco, Tunisia and Qatar did not help resolve the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians still remain deprived of their inalienable right to have an independent and sovereign state on their own land, owing to Israel’s obduracy. For the same reason, the fate of the roadmap of the Palestinian statehood pronounced by the Quartet still remains uncertain. Israel remains in control of the West Bank and Jerusalem. Its recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is also believed to be only a tactical move to mislead world opinion.

The exponent of normalizing relations with Israel also argue that as part of its strategy to curry favour with the United States where the Jewish lobby enjoys enormous influence on the policy-makers, it would be in Pakistan’s national interest to normalize its relations with Israel. These elements, however, tend to ignore the fact that Pakistan-US relationship has its own rationale. It is essentially based on the mutuality of interests and as such the suggestion that Pakistan’s relations with Israel would help in enhancing the status of its relationship with the United States is devoid of logic.

Islamic solidarity is, of course, the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy. However, it is an illusion that Pakistan did not normalize its relations with Israel only as a mark of its Islamic solidarity with the Palestinians. Pakistan has always been the most vociferous and articulate opponent of the creation of Israel as a matter of principle. Pakistan had refrained from recognizing Israel as it did not enjoy legitimacy and is a manifestation of perfidy against the Palestinians.

Moreover, with the unconditional and unlimited backing of the United States, the Zionist entity has always worked against the interests of the Islamic world.

Its successive leadership made strenuous efforts to drive a wedge among the Islamic nations only to weaken the Palestinian cause. Ariel Sharon has been guilty of using excessive military force against the Palestinians to suppress their struggle. It is an irony that Pakistan has sought to normalize its relations with Israel at a time when the person who is responsible for the massacre of the Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila happens to be at the helm of its affairs.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Divided they stand

THE United Nations was founded 60 years ago to reflect the noblest ideals of the democracies that came together to defeat fascism and build a juster world. It has often been said since by cynics that a more accurate name for the organisation would be “Divided States”.

Sadly, it is only realistic to predict that, barring a diplomatic miracle before the UN’s biggest-ever summit that opened in New York on Tuesday, it will once again fail to meet its own expectations.

The 150 or so heads of state and government who are attending are reviewing progress since their millennium summit five years ago. That was held to learn from the lessons of a first turbulent post-cold war decade that saw catastrophic failure in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda and a widening gap between the developed and developing worlds.

Since then the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have raised painful questions about the efficacy and relevance of the world body. Last week’s report on the Iraq oil-for-food scandal exposed an organization tainted by corruption, though it spared Kofi Annan, the secretary-general. And the latest human development report highlighted the distance still to be travelled if there is to be any substance to so many pious declarations about eradicating global inequalities.

Any accounting of what happens on the East river this week is bound to focus on how it leaves the millennium development goals — to end hunger, poverty and disease.

The United States, represented by the controversial John Bolton, initially demanded that the very phrase be removed from the summit’s “outcome” document, and only relented in the face of outrage by many other countries.

Yet whatever the final wording, there is no prospect that the world’s only superpower will pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of its GDP on development aid, the target agreed by Europeans. That is a depressing step backwards from the Monterrey summit in 2002.

—The Guardian, London