Genesis Of A Holy Book

Appendix 4: THE KORAN ON WOMEN

By the time MoM undertook his ministry (c. 613), patriarchy already had a long history in the Abrahamic tradition.  The Torah is clear on the inferiority of women.  Indeed, Genesis begins by establishing that men shall rule over women (3:16).  In the so-called “Ten Commandments” purportedly given to Moses on mount Horeb / Sinai, women–along with slaves and livestock–were considered legal chattel (that is: a Hebrew man’s property). {1}

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 notifies us that a Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist.  Leviticus 27:3-7 specifies that women are worth between 1/2 and 2/3 as much as men.  And, by the way, make sure women are forced to sleep outside for a week when they are menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24).  The Torah oozes with patriarchy.  Needless to say, there were no women in the Sanhedrin.  It comes as no surprise, then, that, today, there is no more flagrant misogyny than is found amongst Haredim (Orthodox Jews).

Meanwhile, women’s rights has been championed in societies that are the most secular.  This is no coincidence.

When it came to Abrahamic lore, Mosaic law was only the beginning.  The male-centric precedent was upheld in the Christian tradition.  The subordination of women is established in Paul’s first letter to Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman must receive instruction in silence, with complete submission; and I [god] do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority of a man; but to remain silent”).  In his first letter to the Corinthians 14:34, Paul declared that women should remain silent in church.  To ensure the point was made loud and clear, he wrote to the Ephesians that a wife must always submit to her husband (5:22-23); and then repeated this claim to the Colossians (3:18).  Also in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul states that the head of a woman is a man (11:3) and that women were MADE FOR men (11:6-9).  Indeed, the canonical scripture of Nicene Christianity was rife with misogyny.  It should come as little surprise, then, that the (hyper-patriarchal) Roman Catholic Church has such an opprobrious record on this issue. {2}

The putative “Final Revelation” continues this odious legacy.  The most notorious passages are verses 3-4, 15, 22-25, 33-34, and 43 of Surah 4.  (Also risible are verses 223-237 and 282 of Surah 2; as well as verses 4-6, 8, and 13 of Surah 24–all of which make clear that women are inferior to men.)  All of these passages are Medinan; and therefore take precedence.  It is no wonder that Aisha is reported to have stated that she knew of no women who suffered as much as Muslim women (Bukhari no. 5825).

In sum: The Koran is hardly a clarion call for women’s rights.  This is in keeping with the teachings of MoM, wherein we are notified that women are intellectually inferior to men (Bukhari chapt. 12, no. 2658; alt. 1/6/301, 2/24/541, and 3/48/826) and that hell is populated primarily by women…because they deserve it (Bukhari 1/2/29; alt. no. 304).  No kidding.  This makes sense, as women are less intelligent and less morally capable than men (Muslim no. 241).

In the “sahih” Hadith, we are also notified that women are not allowed pray in mosques (Bukhari 1/12/828; Abu Dawood vol. I, no. 570); and that women are not allowed to participate in leadership (Bukhari 9/88/219).  It’s one wonder how anyone could come away with the impression that the Sunnah was somehow–in any way–good for women.  Perhaps MoM’s child-bride, Aisha bint Abu Bakr, put it best when she said: “I have not seen any woman suffer as much as the believing women” (Bukhari no. 5825).

Not only does Islam’s holy book do absolutely nothing to advocate for equal rights for women, it repeatedly DEMEANS women.  In addition to the aforesaid passages, we might note the inheritance protocol (4:11-12 and 4:176) and the testimony protocol (2:282).  In the former, the superiority of men is confirmed by Koranic inheritance protocol–whereby, once more, one man is equivalent to two women. {3}  (Regarding protocols for inheritance, no actuary on Earth could possibly make sense out of these passages.)  In the latter, we are notified that women are not as trustworthy as men, as the testimony of two female witnesses is required to reach parity with the testimony of a single man.  Women are to be sequestered, at the pleasure of male minders (either fathers or husbands); and are to play a very limited role in public life.

What of a role in political life? According to Abu Bakr: When MoM heard that Persians had made the daughter of Emperor “Khosrow” their ruler, he declared: “Never will a nation succeed that makes a woman its ruler.”

So why the unabashed misogyny?  To find an explanation, we might start by noting that the Koran is addressed EXPLICITLY TO MEN.  This is made clear in numerous places throughout the “Recitations”.  Turning to Surah 4 alone, ten passages are illustrative:

• Verses 3-4 tells the audience that “YOU may marry women of YOUR choice” (referring to slave-girls as those whom YOU rightfully possess)…two or three or four…whatever seems good to YOU.”  (Tellingly, the passage says nothing about a woman marrying the man of HER choice.)  It then says that “if YOU wish, marry one of YOUR slaves.”  Finally, it says that “YOU should give the bride her ‘mahr’ [dowry].”  Thus the marriage was thought of as transactional; and done at the discretion of the man.
• Verses 11-12 notifies the audience that, if THEY (women) have no children, then “YOU will inherit half of what YOUR wives leave” …whereas in the event that YOU die, “your wives will inherent a quarter of what you leave.”
• Verse 15 notifies the audience that in the event any one of YOUR women is raped, the victim should be confined to her home until she dies.
• Verse 19 forbids “believers” from inheriting women against their will.  This is telling, as it indicates that even when “believers” are referenced by the authors, they have only men in mind.
• Verses 22-25 forbid YOU from taking your step-mothers, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and nieces as wives.  It then explains that “all married women are forbidden to YOU except those whom YOUR right hand possesses [that is: women married to non-Muslim men on whom one has staked one’s claim; as with captives].”  The audience is then told that women whom YOU may choose to marry are amongst those whom “YOUR right hand possesses [read: slave-girls].”  This means that wives–as well as female captives–are the possessions of their husbands. And to ensure the pecking order is clear, men are said to be a grade above women.
• Verses 33-34 specifies that “if YOU suspect THEM [women] of being disobedient, then admonish and beat them.  If THEY [women] obey YOU, then abstain from punishing them.”  Thus recalcitrant wives should be physically reprimanded.  Never mind recalcitrant husbands; for they are the master in the relationship.
• Verse 43 admonishes against praying after YOU have engaged in intercourse with women and are unable to wash afterward.  It also specifies that if THEY [women] get out of line, then YOU can hit them; but if THEY [women] obey you, then abstain from punishing them.  The passage goes on to notify “all believers” that contact with menstruating women makes YOU impure.  Thus: When “all believers” is referenced, it is directed exclusively at MALE believers.
• Verse 127 reads: “They consult YOU concerning women.  Say, ‘God has given YOU directions concerning THEM.’”
• Even when the Koran has verses that PERTAIN to women, it is still not ADDRESSED to them–as verse 128 makes clear.
• Verse 129 concedes that YOU may not be able to treat your wives equally, yet it cautions the intended audience against neglecting one particular wife altogether.

This Surah is helpfully entitled “The Women”.  In effect, women were seen as something to be handled.  (This is how YOU deal with THEM.)  Unsurprisingly, there was no Surah about “The Men”. {4}

It is telling that after the “Fatihah” (the brief prologue chapter), the first seven major chapters of the Koran are entitled: The Cow, The (Progeny of) Joachim, The Women, The Table, The Cattle, The Purgatorium, and The Spoils Of War.  Barring the Surah that was (ostensibly) about that which is “of Joachim” [“al-Imran”, referenced simply because he was Mary’s father], all these topics are presented as the objects of discussion.  Every other chapter in the Koran that is about an iconic person (in which the given name is used) does not employ the definite article (Al-): Surahs 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 31, 47, and 71.  It is only when the topic is objectified that the definite article is employed. {5}

When it comes to revealing the intended audience, might Surah 4 have been an anomaly?  Alas, no.  There are myriad places throughout the Koran that indicate that the audience is exclusively men.  We’ve already seen ten passages that make this apparent.  Here are 32 MORE illustrative passages–which are distributed evenly throughout the book:

• 2:49 recounts how the Egyptian pharaoh slew your sons and kept YOUR women [nisa’akum].  This passage is repeated four more times. {6}
• 2:187 states that “permitted for YOU during nights of fasting is approaching your wives [nisa-ikum].”
• 2:221 admonishes the intended audience against marrying female polytheists. {7}
• 2:223-237 explains that a man’s wives are his property.  This is unequivocal: They are something he POSSESSES.  It effectively states that marriage is a license to fuck.  We read: “YOUR wives are a place of sowing; so come to your place of cultivation however you wish.”  The audience is then given instructions: “When YOU divorce women…” and “When YOU die, leaving widows…”  Later, the audience is given the reassurance that “god will forgive you if YOU divorce a women before consummating the marriage.”  (Note: In verse 233: A husband is enjoined to wean from his lactating wife if he so chooses.)
• 3:14 lists earthly desires such as heaped-up treasures of gold and silver, pedigreed horses, cattle, land…and women.
• 3:61 abjures the audience to declare: “Let us gather OUR women and you YOUR women.”
• 5:5 informs the audience that chaste women of the book are lawful for YOU to take as wives (when YOU give them just compensation).
• 7:81 decries homosexual activity between men, by scornfully leveling the accusation in the event that “YOU approach men with desire instead of women.”  (No word yet on lesbians.)  Such opprobrium is also demonstrated when the book cites Lot’s condemnation of those who approach men instead of women “with desire” (27:55).
• 7:141 (see 2:49)
• 14:6 (see 2:49)
• 16:72 says that “god has given YOU wives from amongst yourselves.”
• 23:1-6 and 70:30 refer to followers-in-general in the third person–making reference to THEIR wives and women THEY possess.  Thus “believers” are associated–by default–with men.
• 24:4 admonishes against defaming (purportedly) chaste women without producing four other (male) witnesses to corroborate one’s accusations.  The admonition is repeated in 24:23.
• 24:31 instructs the audience to tell believing women to dress modestly.  To be clear: It doesn’t tell believing women to dress modestly; it instructs the intended audience to relay the message to them.  It is up to MEN to ensure that women dress appropriately, as it is the men’s honor that is on the line.  24:33 then admonishes the book’s intended audience: Do not force your slave-girls into prostitution in order to enrich yourself.  Yet…if anyone DOES end up raping them, once they have been forcefully deflowered, god may forgive them for not being chaste. (!)
• 24:58 makes clear the “Recitations” are addressed not to those who are POSSESSED  (that is: slaves and women), but to those who POSSESS OTHERS (that is: Muslim men). {8}
• 26:165-166 condemns homosexuality (between men): “Of all the creatures in the world, will YOU approach men; and leave those whom god has created FOR YOU to be your mates?”  Obviously, the authors of this passage were talking to men (about MEN who approach men instead of women).  The only other reading of this verse is that the Koran is enjoining lesbianism.
• 27:55 is a condemnation when YOU go lustfully to men instead of to women.
• 28:4 (see 2:49)
• 30:21 explains that “among god’s signs, he created wives [azwaj-an] FOR YOU so that YOU might take comfort in them.”
• 33:4 offers a peculiar disclaimer that god “has not made your wives [azwaj-akumu] those whom you’ve declared to be your mothers.”
• 33:49-52 gives “all believers” instructions about when YOU are permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with women; and .  Women are referred to as those whom “YOU rightfully possess”. {8}  It ALSO states: “O you who believe!  When YOU marry believing women and then divorce THEM before having had sexual intercourse with them, no ‘iddah’ is warranted.  Simply give THEM a gift and set them free in a pleasing manner.”  Again, everything is done at the discretion of the man.
• 39:6 proclaims that god “created YOU”; and then–from that creation–produced women.
• 40:25 (see 2:49)
• 49:11 requests that the audience not let PEOPLE ridicule other PEOPLE…then goes on to add: “nor let women ridicule other women”.  In other words, when addressing the audience, the default was men.  Meanwhile, when a verse refers to women to make a point, it must explicitly say so–as with 33:35 (which states that both women and men have the same liturgical obligations).  It could have just stipulated that “all people” have the same obligations; but that would have–by implication–only applied to men.  So such wording would not have sufficed.
• 60:11 tells the audience what to do if any of YOUR wives desert you.
• 65:1-5 notifies the audience when YOU are permitted to divorce your wives.  It then refers to those among YOUR women with whom YOU are permitted to have sex–which includes girls who have not yet menstruated. (!)  Lastly, the audience is enjoined to “let women live in the same manner as YOU live yourselves.”
• Well, then, what about AFTER puberty?  Along with 4:43 (mentioned above), 2:222-223 explains that YOU shall not have sex with women during menstruation.  This reflects the Judaic rules concerning “nidah” (menstruating women) and “tumah” (impurity).
• 65:6 instructs the audience to let women live in the same manner as YOU live yourselves, in accordance with YOUR means; and do not harass THEM (that is: while you are waiting the appropriate period to have sex with them, after they’ve been widowed).  Also, if a woman suckles YOUR infants, then YOU should pay her for the task.
• In 70:30, men are notified that they own their wives.  This occurs in a passage that discusses those (men) who conduct themselves piously.

It is difficult for any descent person to read these passages without recoiling.  In a patriarchal society, these are precisely the sort of statements we would expect to find.  And so it was.

Given the above 42 passages, it is indubitable that the Abrahamic deity’s last message to mankind was addressed exclusively to men.  This is presumably because women were not, as it were, “running the show”.

4:1 and 9:71 would have been ideal opportunities to assert that women are equal to men.  But they do not.  Instead, we’re told that men and women are allies in Faith, and so share the same obligations (salat, zakat, and other matters of piety).  This amounts to declaring that EVERYBODY must be obedient vis a vis the Sunnah, irrespective of gender.

Several other passages attest to the fact that Islam’s holy book is CLEARLY not addressed to women.  It is not for nothing that one of the “Sahabah” (Nusayba bint Ka’b al-Ansariyah) once asked MoM about the “Recitations”: “Why does god only address men?”

This should dispel any illusions that the purported “Final Revelation” is directed to anyone other than men.  It’s not. {9}  Let’s be clear: It is not the case that ONE PARTICULAR SECTION of the Koran is addressed solely to men.  For–to reiterate–the passages enumerated above are evenly distributed throughout the book.  That is to say: They occur sporadically, without any demarcation of one intended audience vs. another.  There is no transition from one addressee to another (“Now we’re only addressing men; now we’re addressing everyone.”)  It is implicit, then, that the audience for such passages is the same the audience to which all other parts of the book are addressed.

But wait.  WHAT ABOUT all the other passages throughout the book?  Am I cherry-picking here?  No.  As it turns out, there are only certain kinds of passages that would reveal the presumed gender of the target audience: Those that pertain to matters in which a gender distinction is salient.  These are the passages enumerated above.  At NO point is it intimated that the intended audience of the “Recitations” included women.  The authors talk ABOUT women, but never TO them.

To reiterate: Several verses explicitly address “ALL BELIEVERS” even as they clearly pertain only to men; thus revealing the ENTIRE BOOK’S intended audience.  Consequently, whenever the authors sought to refer to both men and women, they were obliged to do so explicitly–as we find in 9:71, 16:97, 33:35-36/73, and 57:12-18.  The rest of the time, then, we are left to assume that this was NOT the case.

Tellingly, instead of referring simply to “believers”, there are several verses (24:12, 33:35/73, 47:19, 48:5, 57:12, 60:10-12, 71:28, and 85:10) which refer to believers in the masculine AND believers in the feminine.  Presumably, this was done to ensure the audience was aware the diktat did not pertain to only men (as if to stipulate: “This applies to women too, by the way.”)

If you are a women deigning to heed the Koran, this means reading a book that isn’t addressed to you…let alone meant for your deliberation.  For a woman to even consider reading–nay, listening to the recitation of–the Koran, she is engaging in an act that is inimical to the message of the Koran.  Indeed, for a woman to so much as open a Koran is a patently anti-Koranic act.  The “Recitations” were not intended for her.  

Try as she might, a woman will not find a passage that, say, notifies her how “you” should treat “your” husband.  Instead, she will find the permission to “marry women of your choice”.  (When 4:3 instructs the audience to “Marry the women that seem good to you”, it is not encouraging lesbian betrothals.)  Whenever written in the 2nd person, the “you” is ALWAYS referring to a male audience, NEVER to a female audience.  (Heaven forbid that a woman every be allowed to marry the man of her choice.)

It is also worth noting that the portrayal of heaven in the Koran is designed especially to appeal to men–a matter I explore in “A Brief History Of Heaven And Hell”.  Denizens of “Jannah” are provided with a coterie of buxom angelic concubines (“houri”).  Clearly, passages like 78:33 (emphasizing the fact that they have large breasts) were not included to entice women.  An afterlife Paradise tailored to suit the primal cravings of MEN indicates who the target audience was.

All of this makes sense in light of the belief that women are less intelligent than men, as attested in Bukhari’s Hadith (vol. 6 no. 301)…in addition to verses in the Koran like 2:228/282, 4:3/11/24/34, and 33:50.  Ali ibn Abi Talib is known for having declared: “Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another.”  As the Koran states, they are there for their husbands to plow—that is: to provide sexual gratification and offspring for the men.

Much of this is obfuscated in Islamic apologia.  A common example of hermeneutic chicanery is how disingenuous exegetes interpret the enjoinder to beat one’s wife for being disobedient (4:34).  The phrasing here is sometimes—absurdly—passed off as a (symbolic) “slap on the wrist”—that is: performed as a kind-hearted reprimand; and as something that is to be done ONLY for serious transgressions.  One does not have to be fluent in Classical Arabic to discover—after some due diligence—that this is not what the passage was meant to convey.

In this notorious verse, disingenuous Islamic apologists translate “idribuhunna” (strike / beat / hit) as a light tap—as a smack on the buttocks when scolding an unruly toddler.  They do this in an attempt to make the problematic verse mean something other than what it actually means.  The enjoinder, then, is taken as a recommendation to scold a disobedient wife by giving her a stern admonishment.  Though that’s clearly not what the verse says, unscrupulous apologists triumphantly announce that that’s what it “really means”.  (We’re expected to take their word for it; and just move on.)

Such legerdemain is par for the course in religious apologia.

Some of those who are engaged in such casuistry go a step further and engage in eisegesis.  That is: They import their own (desired) meaning into the text, then pretend it inhered in the text all along.  They go so far as to contrive OPPOSITE meanings, as the more fraudulent translation actually takes “idribuhunna” to mean “go away from” (by recourse to the shared Semitic root of the alternate lexeme in Arabic).  Such exegetical shenanigans are nothing but a game of semantic hop-scotch.

Tragically, for credulous audiences who are eager to hear what they desperately want to hear, this gambit is effective.

The more perfidious Islamic apologists insist that the Sunnah promotes women’s rights.  This is a risible claim.  In fact, even the Taliban has made it. (!)  The catch, of course, is the parenthetical “as is permitted within sharia” or “given what the Sunnah allows” or “in the context of Islam”.  Hence, in North Korea, everyone has complete freedom within the context of Juche.

The more general forms of such legerdemain include “as long as we approve of it” or “as long as it doesn’t transgress the [designated] limits.”  This (the oft-unspoken) proviso tells us everything we need to know about the purported licensure.  Think of totalitarians who claim to support “free speech” so long as it doesn’t disrespect / insult / offend the powers-that-be, or involve any kind of blasphemy.  (That is: Free speech within designated bounds.  In other words: No free speech.)

We encounter the same treatment of “freedom of religion”: a prerogative that exists as long as it doesn’t subvert the protocols of the preferred religion.  (In other words: theocracy with some caveats.)  In the event that one wishes to exercise the chimerical “right”, the result is a Hobson’s Choice.

The Koran is a petition for female empowerment in the same way that–say–the American Declaration of Independence was a homage to the British monarchy.

The retort is often forthcoming: “But it wasn’t THAT bad for the standards of the 7th century.” Regarding the cringe-inducing passages enumerated above, we cannot use this as an excuse.  For the Koran is supposed to be an ineluctable and eternal message; and thus applicable for everyone, everywhere, forevermore.  The argument that Islam’s holy book was a slight improvement on what came before it amongst medieval Bedouin (thus going from egregiously misogynistic to plain-old misogynistic) does not pass muster. {10}

Yet the way Koran-fetishists gush about women in Islam’s holy book, one would think it was somehow–in some oblique way–a paean to female empowerment.  Therefore, we might suppose, those who participated in the women’s rights movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries should have been quoting the Koran left and right.  They did not do this, of course.  Why not?  The explanation is quite simple: Because there is nothing in the Koran that remotely resembles anything advocating for gender equality.

To reiterate: The “Recitations” (as the final revelation) are supposed to be timeless.  There is no “expecting too much” from a book that alleges itself to be infallible.  Some Islamic apologists make the (technically accurate) point that at least some parts of the Koran were improvements over certain (EVEN WORSE) Iron Age practices regarding women.  Perhaps.  But we must recall that the Koran professes to be the FINAL WORD on all matters…written for all time.  Slightly less bad than downright awful simply doesn’t cut it.

How about: “Women should be afforded all the dignity and respect of men”?  Nope.  How about: “Women should be allowed to speak up…and participate equally in the governance of society”?  Nope.  33:51 makes very clear that the man is the boss of his wives.  70:30 goes so far to say that men POSSESS their wives.

In the 7th century, was it too soon to propound women’s rights?  Was the world not yet ready for women’s rights?  Hardly.  Hypatia of Alexandria was doing it hundreds of years earlier (before a mob of Christian fanatics killed her for it).  Is female empowerment too much to expect from something composed during the Dark Ages?  Not from a work allegedly authored by the Creator of the Universe.

For those who might STILL doubt whether or not the intended audience was exclusively male, we might look to some extra-Koranic evidence. MoM’s most famous speech may be a good place to start.  In his (fabled) “Farewell Sermon”, the self-proclaimed (soon-to-be-assassinated) prophet was recorded as saying:

“O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. [It is your right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and they should not commit any indecency [“fahishah”]. If they do, then god permits you to shut them in separate rooms and beat them, but not severely.”  That was according to Ibn Ishaq (as quoted in Ibn Hisham’s “Sirah al-Nabawiyah” and Al-Tabari’s “Tarikh”).

Muslim’s “Sahih” Hadith has it thus: “Fear god concerning women! Verily you have taken them on god’s approval, and intercourse with them has been made lawful to you by god’s word.  You too have right over them.  They should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like.  If they do, you can scold them, but not too severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner” (Book 15; no. 159).

“Sunan” Ibn Maja has it thus: “I enjoin good treatment of your women, for they are your prisoners.  You have no right to treat them otherwise unless they commit indecency.  If they do, then forsake them in their beds and hit them; but not so much that it causes injury or leaves a mark.  If they obey you, then do not seek means of reprisal against them” (vol. 3; book 9; no. 1851).

Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Kinani of Basra (a.k.a. “Al-Jahiz”) has it thus: “O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours.  They may not lay with other men in your beds, let anyone into your house that you do not want (without your permission), or commit indecency.  If they do, god has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds; or to strike them in a way that doesn’t injure them.  If they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly.  The women who live with you are like captives [“awan”], unable to manage for themselves.  You took them as a trust from god, and enjoy their sex as lawful through god’s word.”

Clearly, the statement was addressed EXPLICITLY TO MEN. When we consider this proclamation, we find that it is in keeping with the “Recitations”. (It seems to be a take-off on 2:228 in particular.)

Bear in mind that this celebrated sermon was (purportedly) MoM’s last directive to all mankind.  Of all the importune things the reputed “messenger of god” might of thought to convey to human society, THIS is what he came up with.

The standard defense of the flagrant misogyny the characterized Islam’s most hallowed scripture is that it does not go so far as to prescribe the programatic abuse of women; and at least it doesn’t endorse female infanticide.  Granted.  This might be dubbed the “it could’ve been worse” defense.  This seems to come from the “it only said to STRIKE your wife, not to impale here with a pitchfork, so this was actually an iota of progress” school of thought.

But the proscription against abusing women long predates the Abrahamic religions.  We can go all the way back to the 11th century B.C., noting the Code of Assura (in Ancient Assyria) forbade a man from striking his wife.  (The punishment for such a transgression was cutting off his finger.)  The right of a man to strike his wife was never set in stone; and the Koran did nothing to help the situation.  (For more on progress that had already been made elsewhere in the area of women’s rights, see my three-part series on “The Empowerment Of Women”.)

So what does all this tell us about those who composed the “Recitations”?  Authors who saw men and women as equals would not have written a book like this.  If, on the other hand, the authors of a holy book were misogynists, this is exactly the sort of book they would have written.  Indeed, if one wanted to maximize patriarchy, this is what such a book would look like.

The most delusive revisionists claim that the Koran gave women the right to vote.  This is preposterous.  To support this contention, the only verse they can refer to is 60:12, where there is reference to women making “bayy’ah” to MoM.  Those engaged in exegetical shenanigans contort this to mean that women were purported to have equal VOTING rights (as if there was some kind of participatory democracy–replete with universal suffrage–prescribed in the Koran).  The problem here is that “bayy’ah” is more accurately translated as “oath of allegiance to” / “contribution to” / “participation in” god’s cause.  With respect to this matter, 33:35 provides context.  The passage assigns men and women the same OBLIGATIONS, not the same entitlements.

In the few (notable) cases in which women WERE empowered in the Muslim world, it was man who–of their own prerogative–empowered them.  They did so according to insights gleaned independently of “received wisdom”.  Such felicitous developments were not due to anyone’s adherence to the dictates of this or that scripture.  (I address this matter in part 2 of “The History Of Female Empowerment”.)

4:34 is probably the most notorious verse.  It proclaims, in no uncertain terms, that men shall have dominion over women.  Period.  The statement is unequivocal on this point.  A righteous woman, it declares, is an obedient woman.  Notice that the verse can be taken to mean that men shall be the custodians / stewards [“qawwamuna”] of women–which sounds rather gallant–chivalrous even. {11}  But WHY are men charged with this lofty station?  To EMPOWER women?  No.  The passage explains: Because God made men superior to women (or “higher than” women, or to “excel” women, depending on the translation).  It then specifies that it is within the husband’s right to strike his wife if she gets out of line.  One can’t read such passages without wincing.  Any claim that such passages amount to some kind paean to gender equality is manifestly false. {12}

It would be an understatement to say that this flies in the face of anything remotely resembling feminism.

Tellingly, the term used for marriage in Islamic scripture is “nikah”, which literally refers to a contract (viz. the entitlements that a man is given) for sexual intercourse.  This warrant for men to bed un-accounted-for women has nothing to do with female empowerment.  That this is, effectively, a license to fuck is confirmed by 2:223, which tells us that women are for plowing (like a field), at the husbands discretion.  This point is reiterated at various points in Bukhari’s Hadith.  In the most charitable interpretation of that verse, the audience for the “Recitations” is notified: “YOUR wives” are “a place of sowing of seed for YOU.”  (Bear in mind that 65:4 specifies that men are allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls.)

Also note that the prerogative for divorce is arrogated solely to the husband (66:5).  Search as one might, one will not find ANYTHING in the Koran that beseeches men to not abuse women…let alone anything that explicitly stipulates that men and women are EQUAL.  If gender parity is what the authors of the Koran meant to actually convey, they probably would have gotten around to saying it somewhere in the book’s 114 surahs.  No such statement exists.  (There is a Hadith passage where MoM purportedly enjoins his audience to respect one’s mother above all others.  This is about as earth-shattering as the Sunnah gets.)

Harsh corporeal punishment for even petty offenses (as is prescribed in 5:33-39 and 24:2) was even worse for women.  Note that this is reiterated in the section on punishments in Bukhari’s Hadith (no. 6788, 6802, and 6831-33).  Thus beating is considered a DISCIPLINARY measure: “darb ta’deeb”.  Reprimanding women by striking them is, after all, about keeping one’s wives in line.

In conventional fiqh, this is distinguished from OTHER kinds of beating–such as “darb al-takseer” (beating that causes something to physically BREAK) and “darb al-tashaffi” (beating for sexual gratification), which are discouraged.  So go ahead and hit your wife; but maybe it’s not a good thing if doing so gives you a hard-on or fractures her bones.  Given this license to strike one’s wife, it is unsurprising that Aisha bint Abu Bakr was physically assaulted by MoM (that is: struck hard enough to cause her significant pain and leave bruises), per her own testimony, as recounted in Muslim’s Hadith (vol. 4; no. 2127).

It might be noted that, in modern Arabic, simply inserting an “h” into the term used for a sanctioned beating (thereby yielding “darb al-ta’dheeb”) literally means TORTURE, which is not permissible when it comes to one’s wife (at least, not according to conventional fiqh).  So the query must be posed: Where, exactly, is the line to be drawn between “darb al-ta’deeb” (acceptable) and “darb al-ta’dheeb” (unacceptable)?  This is anyone’s guess.  One might wonder: Who is there behind closed doors to monitor a husband so as to ensure he neither becomes aroused nor breaks anything (beyond his wife’s will) when he hits her with permissible force?

And how is a husband, who enjoys the prerogative, to keep himself from crossing the line from “darb al-ta-deeb” (illicit assault that might possibly be “halal”) into, well, “haraam” harm (discipline that involves battery)?  In posing such questions, we must be reminded that the matter of CONSENT in “fiqh” (Islamic jurisprudence) is based entirely on social status; and social status is based primarily on religion (Muslims over everyone else) and sex (men over women).

It should be noted that women do far worse off in direct proportion to the strict-ness of “sharia” (as conceived by fundamentalists).  Hence, when a woman is raped, the dishonor is not to HER but to her HUSBAND.  This tells us much of what we need to know about why Muslimahs are sometimes compelled to do the things they do: It’s all about the MEN.  (In Salafi communities, the woman is punished for being raped.)

Mohammedan precedent persists to the present day in Saudi Arabia.  So it comes as no surprise that women can be detained / imprisoned for disobedience to their designated male guardian (be it a father, brother, or—as is often the case—husband).  Women—especially unwed mothers—face enormous discrimination regarding child custody and property rights.  In Saudi court cases, a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man’s, per the Koran.  Contending that if a woman is harassed—or even accosted—due to not dressing “modestly” enough entails that the onus is on HER to not be abused.  If she fails to cover her hair / face / wrists / ankles, it is HER fault in the event she is raped by libidinous male bystanders.  Hence men who abuse—or even kill—insufficiently garbed women face little to no legal repercussions in Saudi Arabia; just as the first Mohammedans envisioned it.

To be clear: This is ALL in keeping with the Sunnah.

When all but two of the 20 worst countries in the world (assessed for the treatment of women) have instituted a strict version of sharia, it becomes plain to see that the Sunnah is certainly not helping; and is most likely a significant part of the problem.  (Nations on this ignominious list that are NOT Islamic are typically the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, and South Sudan.  Honduras and Sri Lanka usually don’t fair well either.  North Korea is a nightmare for everyone.)  When not a single Muslim-majority country is in the top 40 countries for the treatment of women, then this becomes incontrovertible.

Nation-States that base their governance on the Sunnah make Atwood’s “Gilead” look like the Seneca Falls Convention.

The Sunnah in general is lightyears from a clarion call for women’s rights–something that had been championed since time immemorial at various places at various times (as discussed in my essays “The Universality Of Morality” and “The Long History Of Legal Codes”). Yet we see Progressive Pakistani’s march in the Aurat [Women’s] Parade, mouthing platitudes about “women’s rights” while complaining about the patriarchy…and in the very next breath refer to the Sunnah.  This is nothing short of discursive schizophrenia.  Praising the source of one’s grievance indicates grave confusion about the ideals one purports to espouse.

Happily, many of the world’s Muslim men do not think it is okay to beat their wives…for ANY reason (in spite of the Koran’s comments on the matter).  That they cannot find support for such an abstention in their holy book seems not to bother them.  The ultimate source, it turns out, is their own conscience.

Footnotes For Appendix 4:

{1  These “ten terms” [“aseret ha-divarim”] constituted a contractual agreement between the Hebrews (alt. “Israelites”) and the Abrahamic deity.  This fabled covenant (the Hebrews’ compact with the Abrahamic deity) actually had two versions–Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21.  Here, the relevant admonishment pertains to covetousness.  There were also prohibitions against recognizing other deities, making idols, mixing meat and dairy, working on the sabbath, etc.  The only other parts that had anything to do with (genuine) morality were admonishments against cheating, stealing, lying, and killing (one’s fellow tribesmen)–which, at the time, was not surprising news to anyone. I discuss the Mosaic decalogue in my essay: “The Universality Of Morality”.}

{2  Fundamentalist Christian denominations infamous for misogyny include Puritans, Calvinists, Pentecostals, and Mormons.  Roman Catholics have a checkered track-record as well. BY FAR, the most patriarchal societies (that is: societies that have been oppressive to women) were those governed by the three major Abrahamic Faiths.  The salience of Abrahamic religionism is made blindingly obvious once we look at communities characterized by the un-diluted (read: fundamentalist) instances of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  In ALL such cases, said oppression is THROUGH THE ROOF.  This is evident to the present day.  One need only look at communities that espouse Haredi Judaism or Evangelical Christianity or Salafi Islam to see patriarchy on steroids.}

{3  Note that there was nothing new about allowing females (from within the tribe) to inherit property.  The protocol was spelled out in Numbers, chapter 27.}

{4  Surah 76 (“Al-[i]N-S-an”) and Surah 114 (“Al-N-S”) are most accurately translated as “mankind” (alt. the human race; people-in-general).  Odd that god opted to give two different chapters (essentially) the same title.}

{5  The only exceptions to the use of the definite article are Surah 34 (“Saba”), Surah 35 (“Fatir”), Surah 40 (“Ghafir”), Surah 41 (“Fussilat”), Surah 80 (“Abasa”), and Surah 106 (“Quraysh”)…not counting the four chapters that don’t even have a title (20, 36, 38, and 50).  Sometimes the chapter title refers to the Abrahamic deity (87); sometimes it refers to the Seal of the Prophets (73 and 74).  Sometimes it’s an animal (2, 6, 16, 27, 29, 100, and 105), sometimes it’s a place (7, 15, 18, 52, and 90), sometimes it’s an event (17, 22, 56, 62, 69, 75, 88, 97, and 101), sometimes it’s a phenomenon (9, 13, 24, 32, 45, 48, 51, 58, 59, 65, 81, 82, 84, 99, 103, 107, and 113), and sometimes it’s a category of people (21, 23, 26, 30, 33, 60, 63, 77, 79, 83, and 109).  In virtually every other case, it is a THING–like “The Thunder” or “The Light” or “The Sun” or “The Moon” or “The Night”.  In all instances where the definite article is used in a chapter title, we find the stated topic to be an object of discussion.  (That is: How are MALE believers to think about, and treat, such-and-such?)  Hence “The Women”.}

{6  Note that the term for “women” is “nisaa” / “nisai” (“your women” is “nisaakum” / “nisaikum”).  The repetition of this anecdote is a reminder of how redundant Islam’s holy book is.  Interestingly, there is discrepant wording each time it is repeated, illustrating that the “Recitations” were likely compiled from disparate sources.  Each iteration is crudely worded–indicating that the writers were not re-wording things to exhibit the dexterity of their eloquence.  In each case, the idiosyncratic wording is awkward–though awkward in different ways.  It’s as if each amanuensis were grasping at a way to best articulate the apocryphal tale, and ended up stumbling upon his own wording.}

{7  The distinction here is in the suffix “-at”.  The term for female polytheists is “mu-shrikat” (also found in 33:73 and 48:6).  The term for female hypocrites is “mu-nafiqat” (as in 9:67-68, 48:6, and 57:13).  Meanwhile, female believers are “mu-minat” (ref. 24:12, 33:35/73, 47:19, 48:5, 57:12, 60:10-12, 71:28, and 85:10).  Interestingly, 48:25 breaks the pattern of referring to “male believers and female believers” with the phrase, “believing men and women”.  Such discrepant phraseology reminds us that different parts of the “Recitations” came from disparate sources.}

{8  The idiom here is to possess [malak(at)] “with the right hand”.  The root for “possess” is “M-L-K”, not to be confused with the root for “king” (typically transliterated as “malik”).}

{9  Recall that the Koran is a relatively short book–easily under two-hundred pages (if printed in a normal format).  And only a subset of the text is of such a nature that the intended gender of the audience would be made clear.  Note, also, that the passages enumerated are scattered throughout the book, not concentrated in one particular place.  This adumbration, then, is not the result of some cherry-picking expedition; it is simply noticing a theme that exists from cover to cover.}

{10  The Sunnah was clearly no improvement either–a point discuss in my essays on “The History Of Salafism” and “The Long History Of Legal Codes”.  One might wonder: THAT is the best the Creator of the Universe could manage?  Do Reactionaries in Dar al-Islam really want to stick with the claim that the Koran COULDN’T POSSIBLY be articulated any better?  Are we to suppose that any and all moral insights gleaned since the 7th century are superfluous?}

{11  The terms “hafiz” [guard] and “qanitatun” [to be obedient; from “ata” / “ati[u]”] are used to describe this relationship, wherein men are put higher than women.  This indicates that men are the overseers [alt. “guardians” or “custodians”] to whom women are to be “obedient”.  There are, of course, two senses of guardianship: one in which the guardian serves the guarded; the other in which the guarded is subservient to the guardian.  The Koranic sense is clearly the latter.}

{12  Islamic apologists often disingenuously interpret “ribuh-unna” [strike them] in this verse as a light tap on the wrist.  (Strike is derived from the Semitic “R-B”; typically rendered “id-rib” in Arabic.)  It is rather telling that a wife is not afforded equal license to resort to “ribuh-unna” whenever her husband steps out of line.  If a light tap on the wrist, the strength disparity between the sexes would be moot.  Alas.}