The Biblical concept of “Adam and Eve” had wrought havoc with the existence of women. It has had deep and far-reaching impact on her dignity and freedom and all that is beautiful in human life. As such it needs to be explained and discussed in more detail. Its implications are as follows:
(a) God created only the make creature, called MAN. Soon the MAN felt lonely, so God created WOMAN for MAN. Thus a woman came into existence not on her own right but to fulfill man’s purpose. Such indeed is the “Divine purpose” of woman’s existence on this earth.
(b) Woman was created from Adam’s rib-a rib that is crooked and cannot be straightened.
(c) It was a woman, and not man, who was tempted by Satan, implying thereby that man is stronger them woman and is, by himself, not pone to temptation. The woman is also wicked, because, she in her turn, tempted man. Thus while man emerges as the innocent party in this story, woman is confirmed as weak and wicked.
(d) Woman was caused by God. Her punishment was her labor pains in child birth! And, as if this is not enough, her sin is bequeathed to her progeny. Every child bears the burden of his/her first parents sin on his/her back.logically then, ideal life is that of monasticism, that is, keeping away from women.
Unfortunately, this concept has penetrated the beliefs of the conventional “Muslim” as well. This theory of “Adam and Eve” is invariably referred to prove the inferiority and wickedness of women.
The Quran has not even feeble affinity with this theory. It declared that men and women exist on their own right, and that both were created out of one single life cell. Both are responsible for their own actions and deeds. A woman is neither weak nor wicked simply because is she a woman. In Surah 2, Verse 36, it is stated that both men and women are equally susceptible to temptation.
It is very important to understand this in the interest of the future of women in Pakistan and the world at large. As long as the concept of Eve being created for man prevails, women can never be free in true sense of the word. The emancipated woman of the west has achieved a very high statues in the society and performs manifold activates, but sub-consciously, her role is till to fulfill mans purpose.
The Quranic attitude towards women has already been referred to above. All that needs to be understood at this stage is that the Quranic reference to “Adam” is equivalent to the English world “Man” and hence “mankind”. “Adam” was not an individual. He is symbolic of mankind, and the story of “Adam” is an allegory to explain the status of human beings in relation to their own lives, to each other , and the universe. In a nutshell, it bring home to us the following Truths:
(1) man can conquer all animate and inanimate objects around him. (Malaika)
(2) Man has been endowed, unlike other creations with the faculty of will and choice with the result that he can also say No to the Laws of God. (Shaitan)
(3) Deviation from God’s was mean frustration and pessimism. (Iblis)
(4) But there is always hope for the regeneration of they again follow the path laid down by God’s laws, revealed to the anbiya.
These are the implications of the Quranic concept of the story of “Adam”.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
What is She?
It is said that paradise lies at the feet of the mother.
It is also said that woman is an ever changeable foot-wear
Of the male.
What is She?
An Hadith
An oft-repeated Hadith these days say that a nation which puts a woman at the helm of affairs would not prosper.
Now, even if we restrict our experience to forty-four years of the history of Pakistan, we women have the right to challenge; who was at the helm of affairs when we lost East Pakistan and Siachin? Who have been at the helm of affairs all the will we have been unable to solve the Kashmir issue? And under whom does the country lie prostrate and impoverished, dependent and unable to stand on its own feet? After all, this blighted woman was the helm of affairs for twenty months. Will only those who were at the helm of affairs for the rest of the periods pluck up courage and admit they were men and not women who brought the country to such a pass!
Obscenity
In the may 10, 1991 issue of “The Nation” Yameema Mitha in her articles “Combating Obscenity” has narrated several Indicrous escapades of the guardians of law and order and morality in the name of “Obscenity” in the capital city of the holy land, Islamabad. All this seems to be happening because of some new obscenity Act, the crux of which is that women are obscene and must be removed off the face of the earth. The concluding paragraph of her articles is after my heart and I am reproducing it below because I could do no better.
“ it is pretty obvious to most of us, “she says” that the obscenity bill has been framed by men. If it had been drawn up by women, it may have had a somewhat different focus. For example, we may have suggested the one years imprisonment and five lashes a suitable punishment for all the men out streets are littered with, whose greater entertainment in their lives seems to be scratching their prohibited parts. And at every opportunity they get they seem to be urinating on the road while ogling that the woman passing by. We might also like to suggest three years and twenty lashes for all the men on the road who boldly undress you, burqa and all, with their eyes, and who also use their hands where ever possible. In fact, we may not suggest all these imprisonments and lashings. A far more suitable punishment for such excrescences that offend the eye would be chadar and a chardivari.
An Exposure at last!
In her “My Feudal Lord”, Tehmina Durrani says, “ I have chosen the indignity and humiliation of exposure fro myself for the sake of all those women who are oppressed by men and society at some level”.
While reviewing the book, Bapsy Sidhwa comments thus:
“Pakistani women are reared on horror stories of unhappy marriages, and on tales of the forbearance of silently suffering wives. Women are eulogized for putting up a brave front before the world and hiding the misdeeds of their menfolk; vicious acts, which h even if they cost women their lives, are often regarded as pardonable misdemeanors.
Women – much like chaste China vial that contain a precious perfume – are considered repositories of family honor. Or at least that is the analogy one conjures up to hear men talk about the issue. But ‘ izzat’ is a corrosive and formidable weight to carry, and requires something more like the tough buffalo – hide pouches favored by our ‘bhistis’ to contain it.
The burden would be tolerable if the men kept faith with their traditional roles as providers, protectors and custodians of the honor vested in their womenfolk. But when the man slides from his role and protectors and becomes instead the very person from whom the women needs protection, then to carry on wit this charade is not only brutal but also imbecile. It is surprised only that I has taken to long for a woman like Tehmina Durrani to white her story.”
Boycott
A home- bound , insecure and illiterate woman has, in the course of time, become her own enemy. Such an existence leads to a limited mental horizon, using Sufism and mullahism as a cutch and getting bogged won in superstition and irrationality. However, with so much emphasis on her being the ”queen of the home” she has some to dominate, through the ages, certain aspects and events of family life. Apparently at least he man seems to have been pushed into the background. These events are : choice of life partners for sons and daughters, wedding ceremonies, birth of children and their early upbringing and funeral rites.
Once while recalling the transport drivers strike against the implication of the law of Qisas and Diyat, and eventually the knuckling down of the Mullah, some of us wondered whether women had such a clout. At first it seemed they had no such country-wide power in bringing the economy to a grinding halt. But on a second thought, it was realized that the above mentioned female roles could form the basis of a strong clout in routing the fundamentalists from our family life and ultimately from our national life.
For instant, why should a Mullah preside over the birth, wedding, under ceremonies? Why should a Mullah enter the privacy of our homes and preside over the ’mikah’ ceremony, recite ‘azan’ in the ears of the newborn baby, and why is his presence necessary for the funeral rites? On the only hand we claim that there is no middle man between the Quran and the believers, and yet nothing seems to happen without him.
Women should launch a country wide movement of boycott. Nothing could be more effective
It is also said that woman is an ever changeable foot-wear
Of the male.
What is She?
An Hadith
An oft-repeated Hadith these days say that a nation which puts a woman at the helm of affairs would not prosper.
Now, even if we restrict our experience to forty-four years of the history of Pakistan, we women have the right to challenge; who was at the helm of affairs when we lost East Pakistan and Siachin? Who have been at the helm of affairs all the will we have been unable to solve the Kashmir issue? And under whom does the country lie prostrate and impoverished, dependent and unable to stand on its own feet? After all, this blighted woman was the helm of affairs for twenty months. Will only those who were at the helm of affairs for the rest of the periods pluck up courage and admit they were men and not women who brought the country to such a pass!
Obscenity
In the may 10, 1991 issue of “The Nation” Yameema Mitha in her articles “Combating Obscenity” has narrated several Indicrous escapades of the guardians of law and order and morality in the name of “Obscenity” in the capital city of the holy land, Islamabad. All this seems to be happening because of some new obscenity Act, the crux of which is that women are obscene and must be removed off the face of the earth. The concluding paragraph of her articles is after my heart and I am reproducing it below because I could do no better.
“ it is pretty obvious to most of us, “she says” that the obscenity bill has been framed by men. If it had been drawn up by women, it may have had a somewhat different focus. For example, we may have suggested the one years imprisonment and five lashes a suitable punishment for all the men out streets are littered with, whose greater entertainment in their lives seems to be scratching their prohibited parts. And at every opportunity they get they seem to be urinating on the road while ogling that the woman passing by. We might also like to suggest three years and twenty lashes for all the men on the road who boldly undress you, burqa and all, with their eyes, and who also use their hands where ever possible. In fact, we may not suggest all these imprisonments and lashings. A far more suitable punishment for such excrescences that offend the eye would be chadar and a chardivari.
An Exposure at last!
In her “My Feudal Lord”, Tehmina Durrani says, “ I have chosen the indignity and humiliation of exposure fro myself for the sake of all those women who are oppressed by men and society at some level”.
While reviewing the book, Bapsy Sidhwa comments thus:
“Pakistani women are reared on horror stories of unhappy marriages, and on tales of the forbearance of silently suffering wives. Women are eulogized for putting up a brave front before the world and hiding the misdeeds of their menfolk; vicious acts, which h even if they cost women their lives, are often regarded as pardonable misdemeanors.
Women – much like chaste China vial that contain a precious perfume – are considered repositories of family honor. Or at least that is the analogy one conjures up to hear men talk about the issue. But ‘ izzat’ is a corrosive and formidable weight to carry, and requires something more like the tough buffalo – hide pouches favored by our ‘bhistis’ to contain it.
The burden would be tolerable if the men kept faith with their traditional roles as providers, protectors and custodians of the honor vested in their womenfolk. But when the man slides from his role and protectors and becomes instead the very person from whom the women needs protection, then to carry on wit this charade is not only brutal but also imbecile. It is surprised only that I has taken to long for a woman like Tehmina Durrani to white her story.”
Boycott
A home- bound , insecure and illiterate woman has, in the course of time, become her own enemy. Such an existence leads to a limited mental horizon, using Sufism and mullahism as a cutch and getting bogged won in superstition and irrationality. However, with so much emphasis on her being the ”queen of the home” she has some to dominate, through the ages, certain aspects and events of family life. Apparently at least he man seems to have been pushed into the background. These events are : choice of life partners for sons and daughters, wedding ceremonies, birth of children and their early upbringing and funeral rites.
Once while recalling the transport drivers strike against the implication of the law of Qisas and Diyat, and eventually the knuckling down of the Mullah, some of us wondered whether women had such a clout. At first it seemed they had no such country-wide power in bringing the economy to a grinding halt. But on a second thought, it was realized that the above mentioned female roles could form the basis of a strong clout in routing the fundamentalists from our family life and ultimately from our national life.
For instant, why should a Mullah preside over the birth, wedding, under ceremonies? Why should a Mullah enter the privacy of our homes and preside over the ’mikah’ ceremony, recite ‘azan’ in the ears of the newborn baby, and why is his presence necessary for the funeral rites? On the only hand we claim that there is no middle man between the Quran and the believers, and yet nothing seems to happen without him.
Women should launch a country wide movement of boycott. Nothing could be more effective
HOUSE OR HOME?
When a nation does not live its life, when it stops thinking and researching, then words and concepts lose their meaning. This loss of semantics or science of words distorts our vision and world view. Another loss of an unthinking people is the absence of the art and awareness of connecting words and concepts and the various institutions we live by. Quite oblivious of it, we continue to wade through the mire of glaring contradictions smug in these elf-deception that we are “Muslim Ummah” and hence the best and the chosen ones.
I have picked up today the very basic and fundamental social unit- the Family. Does this family unit manage to make merely a house of mud, brinks, stone or wood or, transforms it into a “home” of living, vibrant, free, loving and wholesome members? That is the question. Whether each one of us is living in t a house o r home it is for reach on of is to think, feel and conclude. I am presenting the view in the way I look at it.
The family until construct itself on the institution of marriage, the husband and wife relationship, and its relationship within its progeny -- daughters and sons. Before analysis, and evaluation of this institution, it would be advisable to describe the status quo as it exists, and trace its heritage as well.
Now the society in which we live ins a sexually segregated one. Although the “mardana” and “zanana” walls in the house are breaking down, and more and more women are seen and accepted functioning outside the house without being immediately dubbed as prostitutes, the fact remains that in the innermost depths of our subconscious such a woman is still suspect.
Secondly, the logical result of this is the feel rooted system of arranged marriages and its concomitant, child marriage. Although and ancient and medieval times, this was not unknown the world over, basically in south Asia our heritage is traceable to the Hindu way of life, a particularly its caste system.
Thirdly, with the background of the institution of “sati”, widow remarriage was irrelevant and divorce in the Hindu law was unknown, hence, until today, a widow and a divorcee are looked down upon as a bad omen and remarriage frowned upon and stigmatized. In fact, before Muslim Family Laws of 1961, it was unthinkable, an anathema.
Fourthly, as far as the children are concerned, the society is very much parent and old age oriented, and children are merely an extension of the parents. They do not exist on their own right as individuals. In fact children are just not allowed to think and feel for themselves.
Our tragedy lies in that the existing traditional family life, and the various facets of this institution, where their heritage we have totally identified these with Islam and we continually keep on justifying, twisting, rationalizing the Quranic words and concepts to suit the status quo. Unfortunately, while perched on the highest executive position, Benazir, Bhutto seems to have put a stamp on it when, in her answer to repeated questions on her conventionally arranges marriage, she described it as traditional and Islamic. Then our Conventions, our meting, our speeches, are superfluous.
Thanks to Allam G.A. Parwez’s “Classification of the Quran”, “Dictionary of the Quran” and other great works, I have been able to test this “linkage” between ‘traditional’ and ‘Islamic’ in the light of the Quranic words and concepts and the result was a horror, for there is no ‘linkage’. This is where ‘semantics’ the science of words and the attempts to ‘connect’ contradictions play an indispensable role.
To being with Surah 4, Verses 3 and 19, and Surah 33, Verse 52, emphasizes that marriage is based on mutual likeness. Unless the desire to live together does not spring from the heart, indeed it is no marriage. This likeness is not that of physical appearance – the stupidity and childishness of seeing a photograph, o having a glimpse though a goal in the curtain, or a chink in the floor, makes me laugh. This likeness, as the Quran expresses, is in-depth discernment of each personalities and possibilities of likeminded companionship. this evaluation and description of marriage cannot be glossed over. There is much more to it that meets the eye. This kind of mutual likeness cannot originate and develop in a segregated society. On the contrary, a segregated society fosters lust, deprivation, mystery, disrespect, unhealthy curiosity and dishonesty. An open society which the Quran visualizes, is composed of integrated, developed men and women with healthy minds and intellect. After all, sec is not the only like between men and women.
A contract has certain preconditions: the two parties concerned should be adult grown up individuals, old enough to understand what the contract this all about and be able to bear its responsibilities. Secondly, a contract is signed between equal parties, and thridly, it must be willingly consented to. This its true of any contract, hence the very word immediately rejects child marriage and blind, arranged marriages. This is not all. A contract willingly signed, can be willingly terminated by the partied concerned. Hence in Surah 33, vs. 28, if differences arise in ones ideas and world-view, if one is no longer like-minded, then it is advisable to separate.
There is another very intriguing aspect to this marriage syndrome. When talking about marriage by choice andcuctaly likeness, the Quran is directly addressing the man and woman concerned. The role of the parents as advisors, the most concerned in the situation, even if they happen to be their own biological children, on matters that concern an intimate lifelong partnership is not understandable. As I said in the beginning, children are individuals who exist on their own right as persons/ there are certainly not a mere passive extension of the parents.
I can imagine you raising your hands in horror against what I have said. But all the I have tried to point out is that there is no linkage between our ‘traditions’ and ‘Islam’. Conceptually, their move in the opposite directions. At the same time, the Quran does not expect overnight changes. What is important at this stage is the consciousness and awareness of what is ‘tradition’ and what is ‘Islamic’. When slowly and gradually, this awareness becomes a convection and hence generally acceptable , the family pattern will change.
What I have attempted is only an academic exercise. We are not oriented towards scientific research. We gleefully quote and deride the western society on the break-down of their family unit, their high percentage of divorce rate, their wayward and defiant children. But how do we know all this? It is because that society has the grit and the self confidence to not only research, but also publish and distribute t the world over. Do we have the capacity to work hard and the confidence to find out whether we live in houses or home? Why are husbands dominating and indulge in wide beating? Why do they always resent a “No” from their family members? Why are wives always depressed, frustrated, and shrewish? Why do mother cling to their sons possessively and are unable to share them with their wives? Why are children dishonest and hypocritical? We like to presume that God’s Heaven and all is well with the World. How can anything be wrong with someone who describes himself as a Muslim?
Ejaculating from observation of our past 43 years of history, everything is wrong. How come our family units and it is a truism that aggregation of these units make a society and a nation – are not producing great leader, scholars and teachers? To make it worse, why are we so characterless? Why are we always camp followers? How come we not only fail to solve the Kashmir issue, we have even lost East Pakistan and Siachin? In the absence of scientific research, this is enough of an historical pragmatic test that our families have failed and alive in houses and not in homes.
I have picked up today the very basic and fundamental social unit- the Family. Does this family unit manage to make merely a house of mud, brinks, stone or wood or, transforms it into a “home” of living, vibrant, free, loving and wholesome members? That is the question. Whether each one of us is living in t a house o r home it is for reach on of is to think, feel and conclude. I am presenting the view in the way I look at it.
The family until construct itself on the institution of marriage, the husband and wife relationship, and its relationship within its progeny -- daughters and sons. Before analysis, and evaluation of this institution, it would be advisable to describe the status quo as it exists, and trace its heritage as well.
Now the society in which we live ins a sexually segregated one. Although the “mardana” and “zanana” walls in the house are breaking down, and more and more women are seen and accepted functioning outside the house without being immediately dubbed as prostitutes, the fact remains that in the innermost depths of our subconscious such a woman is still suspect.
Secondly, the logical result of this is the feel rooted system of arranged marriages and its concomitant, child marriage. Although and ancient and medieval times, this was not unknown the world over, basically in south Asia our heritage is traceable to the Hindu way of life, a particularly its caste system.
Thirdly, with the background of the institution of “sati”, widow remarriage was irrelevant and divorce in the Hindu law was unknown, hence, until today, a widow and a divorcee are looked down upon as a bad omen and remarriage frowned upon and stigmatized. In fact, before Muslim Family Laws of 1961, it was unthinkable, an anathema.
Fourthly, as far as the children are concerned, the society is very much parent and old age oriented, and children are merely an extension of the parents. They do not exist on their own right as individuals. In fact children are just not allowed to think and feel for themselves.
Our tragedy lies in that the existing traditional family life, and the various facets of this institution, where their heritage we have totally identified these with Islam and we continually keep on justifying, twisting, rationalizing the Quranic words and concepts to suit the status quo. Unfortunately, while perched on the highest executive position, Benazir, Bhutto seems to have put a stamp on it when, in her answer to repeated questions on her conventionally arranges marriage, she described it as traditional and Islamic. Then our Conventions, our meting, our speeches, are superfluous.
Thanks to Allam G.A. Parwez’s “Classification of the Quran”, “Dictionary of the Quran” and other great works, I have been able to test this “linkage” between ‘traditional’ and ‘Islamic’ in the light of the Quranic words and concepts and the result was a horror, for there is no ‘linkage’. This is where ‘semantics’ the science of words and the attempts to ‘connect’ contradictions play an indispensable role.
To being with Surah 4, Verses 3 and 19, and Surah 33, Verse 52, emphasizes that marriage is based on mutual likeness. Unless the desire to live together does not spring from the heart, indeed it is no marriage. This likeness is not that of physical appearance – the stupidity and childishness of seeing a photograph, o having a glimpse though a goal in the curtain, or a chink in the floor, makes me laugh. This likeness, as the Quran expresses, is in-depth discernment of each personalities and possibilities of likeminded companionship. this evaluation and description of marriage cannot be glossed over. There is much more to it that meets the eye. This kind of mutual likeness cannot originate and develop in a segregated society. On the contrary, a segregated society fosters lust, deprivation, mystery, disrespect, unhealthy curiosity and dishonesty. An open society which the Quran visualizes, is composed of integrated, developed men and women with healthy minds and intellect. After all, sec is not the only like between men and women.
A contract has certain preconditions: the two parties concerned should be adult grown up individuals, old enough to understand what the contract this all about and be able to bear its responsibilities. Secondly, a contract is signed between equal parties, and thridly, it must be willingly consented to. This its true of any contract, hence the very word immediately rejects child marriage and blind, arranged marriages. This is not all. A contract willingly signed, can be willingly terminated by the partied concerned. Hence in Surah 33, vs. 28, if differences arise in ones ideas and world-view, if one is no longer like-minded, then it is advisable to separate.
There is another very intriguing aspect to this marriage syndrome. When talking about marriage by choice andcuctaly likeness, the Quran is directly addressing the man and woman concerned. The role of the parents as advisors, the most concerned in the situation, even if they happen to be their own biological children, on matters that concern an intimate lifelong partnership is not understandable. As I said in the beginning, children are individuals who exist on their own right as persons/ there are certainly not a mere passive extension of the parents.
I can imagine you raising your hands in horror against what I have said. But all the I have tried to point out is that there is no linkage between our ‘traditions’ and ‘Islam’. Conceptually, their move in the opposite directions. At the same time, the Quran does not expect overnight changes. What is important at this stage is the consciousness and awareness of what is ‘tradition’ and what is ‘Islamic’. When slowly and gradually, this awareness becomes a convection and hence generally acceptable , the family pattern will change.
What I have attempted is only an academic exercise. We are not oriented towards scientific research. We gleefully quote and deride the western society on the break-down of their family unit, their high percentage of divorce rate, their wayward and defiant children. But how do we know all this? It is because that society has the grit and the self confidence to not only research, but also publish and distribute t the world over. Do we have the capacity to work hard and the confidence to find out whether we live in houses or home? Why are husbands dominating and indulge in wide beating? Why do they always resent a “No” from their family members? Why are wives always depressed, frustrated, and shrewish? Why do mother cling to their sons possessively and are unable to share them with their wives? Why are children dishonest and hypocritical? We like to presume that God’s Heaven and all is well with the World. How can anything be wrong with someone who describes himself as a Muslim?
Ejaculating from observation of our past 43 years of history, everything is wrong. How come our family units and it is a truism that aggregation of these units make a society and a nation – are not producing great leader, scholars and teachers? To make it worse, why are we so characterless? Why are we always camp followers? How come we not only fail to solve the Kashmir issue, we have even lost East Pakistan and Siachin? In the absence of scientific research, this is enough of an historical pragmatic test that our families have failed and alive in houses and not in homes.
SURAH 4, VERSE 34
the rise of fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world, the most noteworthy examples being Khomenism and Ziaism, together with the existing model of Saudi Arabia, has in turn given rise to widespread awareness among women about their human condition. The decade of the 1980’s has witnessed a desire to find out for themselves the Quranic injunctions in particular. In Pakistan, under Zia, after a great deal of arbitrational activity, women seem to have settled down mainly to intellectual activity. This has taken the form of seminars and discussions and the establishment of research centers. On of the verses that boggles and preoccupies the mid most, is surah 4, Verse 34. in traditional translations its impact is primatitive and horrific, and totally unacceptable to the humanity and self-esteem of woman hood and the institution of the family itself.
It was in this mood which I shared with many of my compatriots that I approached Allam S. A. Parwez, the great Iqbalite, for further clarification of the above mentioned Quranic verse. I am glad I did, because he fell fatally y ill not very long after this I would have missed out on the details for what emerged out of our dialogue was for me an original rendering of the verse unknown to me in any other literature, including his own published works. No doubt the meaning and suggestion is implicit in his “Mafhumul—Quran”, which I shall follow phrase by phrase, but the comprehensive details given below are based on our dialogue. Since this verse is causing so much of ahead-ache and heart-ache among women of the Muslim world at large, I would like to share it with my readers. I write on Allama Parwez’s authority, and any lapse is entirely my responsibility.
Surah 4, Verse 34 asserts, to being with, as elsewhere that men and women are equal in the exercise of their human rights and duties. The difference lies in the biological functions of the two, there by complimenting each other. This “difference” des not mean inequality and the time-honored make chauvinism which is pathetically a victim of superiority complex. In facet both excel each other in their unique gender potentials bestowed on them by the creator. The uniqueness of the woman lies in her capacity to carry the baby in her womb, lactate and nurture it. this incapacitates her for w while which the men enjoined to perform the function of relieving her of the anxiety of this situation by giving her security and protection. This in no way implies that a woman is debarred from earning or that the man can strangulate her economically. ( In any case, the ultimate objective of the Quran is envisaging a people who have already gone though a metamorphosis, a change from infantile equation of dominance and subservience to human partnership.) after having said this, the Quran goes further to advise women to safeguard their biological function in the interest of the perpetuation of the human specie in accordance with the laws of nature., the next sentence in the verse refers to a possible “rebellion” (‘nashuza hunna’), translated as such by Marmaduke Pickthall, on the part of women. Parwez Sahid also uses the word”sarkashi” in his Mafhum-ul-Quran. the question arises as to rebellion against what and against whom. The traditional mind seems to immediately turn in the direction of sexual waywardness, followed by three stages of preventing it as laid down in the Quran (1) they should be counseled against it (2) the husbands should be separated from their wives (3) corporal punishment can be meted out to them by the husband, if the first and the second stages show no results. Seen with such reference, the woman’s mind naturally balks at it. why was not the sexual waywardness and immorality of the man included in this verse, I cried out in despair. Here two points must be understood at the very outset, explained Allama Parwez. Firstly, the Quran in this verse discusses the issue not between husband and wife, but between men and women in general. As such the matter is tackled by the society and the administration through its institutions, such as the court,. Secondly, the use at stake is not a womans sexual waywardness but her “rebellion” against the biological function of procreation.
In a male-dominated society it eventually comes home of a woman that what smothers and denigrates her is her uterus, so why not do away with it? as Carol Discroll points out: “it should not come as a shock to realize that women can never hop to be liberated in any sense if they are denied the right to control their bodies especially their reproductive organs.”.
This anti-uterus attitude may lead a woman to decide not to have baby. This kind of protest will never come from a man, for he never has to go through this process. He can never even appreciate what is entails both physically and emotionally. It may also be noticed that with more and more awareness and enlightenments the woman feels unfulfilled with her tradition role. If child bearing the ultimate? Vicki Pollard says; “Natural childbirth has been glorified as the most beautiful moment in a woman’s life. This is unfortunate because it leads to the idea the motherhood is the ultimate experience in life”. But a woman is a human being, and her head and heart are no less clamoring for artistic and intellectual creativity apart from sheer procreation. Such rumblings of dissatisfaction and rebellion are reflected even in ancient Greek literature where wives had no part to play in the cultural pursuits, when that country was passing through its most elevating and productive phase in this history.
In Euripides’ “Medea”, the rebel woman spoke out thus:
“Sooner would I stand
Three times to face their battles,
Shield in hand,
Than bear one child”.
Such individuals have existed perhaps on every phase of history and every society. A few individual do not matter but if this feeling becomes collectively articulated and gains momentum as a movement then the survival of the human specie is threatened.
At this stage of the dialogue my immediate report was “ On the contrary the world is threatened with the burden of overpopulation ; we are two billion too many ; in this context it is ridiculous to imagine that the human specie is threatened with extinction, or ever will be in the procreative sense. To this Allama Parwez referred to the liberation struggle waged by the women of Europe and north America. In the past two to three hundred tears. In time it has become more and more articulate and vocal. Already the copious anti-uterus literature is showing signs of dwindling population in those countries, and the omens liberation movement could lead those areas into a crisis. As the third countries (where the extra tow billions have been produced) develop and women gain awareness like the counterparts in the first world, similar literature and movements will blast the status quo. It will then become a world-wide crisis.
Now, the Quran is for all times. It visualizes the future possibilities and accordingly lays down guidelines. Surah 4, Verse 34 becomes applicable only in such a contingency. Otherwise it remains redundant. So, when the world is faced with such a crisis, women will be counseled against this attitude. Of course it if but natural that unless they are helped in eating the confidence and the certainty that marriage and mother hood is not the end of all experience, it will not show results. If this counseling fails and the anti0uterus movement shows no signed f abating, then sexual indulgence, by and large becomes irrelevant. Sex is not for pleasure alone. The administration and the court can then decide on separation, husbands abstaining from sex and thereby putting psychological pressure on the wives. If even this does not bring any punishment, not the husband. Indeed the very idea of the husband beating the wife dishonors and demeans the wife consequently the family life. Above all, it goes against the very values of the Quran. “Quranic Approach towards change” published in Talu-e-islan of January 1990, I’ve taken the position tat these are local and historical and the nature of the punishments can change from time to time and place to place. Regional and local historical continuity, provided the punishments are not too barbaric – makes it easier to implement ; secondly the change is inevitable when the cultural level of the human mind reaches heights of the refinement and beauty. Some psychologists in the meantime accept corporal punishment as part of treatment.)
The rest of the verse emphases that is women retract from their stand, there is no vendetta involved. It may be repeated relatedness between husband and wife, where husbands arrogant to themselves the prerogative of beating their wives black and clue and throwing them out of their bedrooms. It is this misreading of the verse because of which wife-beating if so rampant in almost all Muslim countries. Even so-called educated husbands claim this “Quranic” right to beat their wives, and if they do not beat it is to be seen as a favor in a spirit of magnanimity!
Talking of “rebellion”, the Quran chides men and husbands as well in their role as protectors. They can also be “rebellious” in the sense that they ill-treat and desert their wives. Again it is the administration through its courts that arbitrate understanding between them and settle the money-matters on conditions that are workable.
Such are the details communicated by Allama Parwez on this very sensitive issue. The details are definitely out of the rut of traditional translations and certainly more convincing. In any case, it is worth pondering over and taking up the challenge for further research. It is difficult to give up ideas that have the sanction of history and centuries of time to back it up, even when these ideas are negative and unproductive. Nevertheless the effort must go on, for anything positive said or written is never lost.
It was in this mood which I shared with many of my compatriots that I approached Allam S. A. Parwez, the great Iqbalite, for further clarification of the above mentioned Quranic verse. I am glad I did, because he fell fatally y ill not very long after this I would have missed out on the details for what emerged out of our dialogue was for me an original rendering of the verse unknown to me in any other literature, including his own published works. No doubt the meaning and suggestion is implicit in his “Mafhumul—Quran”, which I shall follow phrase by phrase, but the comprehensive details given below are based on our dialogue. Since this verse is causing so much of ahead-ache and heart-ache among women of the Muslim world at large, I would like to share it with my readers. I write on Allama Parwez’s authority, and any lapse is entirely my responsibility.
Surah 4, Verse 34 asserts, to being with, as elsewhere that men and women are equal in the exercise of their human rights and duties. The difference lies in the biological functions of the two, there by complimenting each other. This “difference” des not mean inequality and the time-honored make chauvinism which is pathetically a victim of superiority complex. In facet both excel each other in their unique gender potentials bestowed on them by the creator. The uniqueness of the woman lies in her capacity to carry the baby in her womb, lactate and nurture it. this incapacitates her for w while which the men enjoined to perform the function of relieving her of the anxiety of this situation by giving her security and protection. This in no way implies that a woman is debarred from earning or that the man can strangulate her economically. ( In any case, the ultimate objective of the Quran is envisaging a people who have already gone though a metamorphosis, a change from infantile equation of dominance and subservience to human partnership.) after having said this, the Quran goes further to advise women to safeguard their biological function in the interest of the perpetuation of the human specie in accordance with the laws of nature., the next sentence in the verse refers to a possible “rebellion” (‘nashuza hunna’), translated as such by Marmaduke Pickthall, on the part of women. Parwez Sahid also uses the word”sarkashi” in his Mafhum-ul-Quran. the question arises as to rebellion against what and against whom. The traditional mind seems to immediately turn in the direction of sexual waywardness, followed by three stages of preventing it as laid down in the Quran (1) they should be counseled against it (2) the husbands should be separated from their wives (3) corporal punishment can be meted out to them by the husband, if the first and the second stages show no results. Seen with such reference, the woman’s mind naturally balks at it. why was not the sexual waywardness and immorality of the man included in this verse, I cried out in despair. Here two points must be understood at the very outset, explained Allama Parwez. Firstly, the Quran in this verse discusses the issue not between husband and wife, but between men and women in general. As such the matter is tackled by the society and the administration through its institutions, such as the court,. Secondly, the use at stake is not a womans sexual waywardness but her “rebellion” against the biological function of procreation.
In a male-dominated society it eventually comes home of a woman that what smothers and denigrates her is her uterus, so why not do away with it? as Carol Discroll points out: “it should not come as a shock to realize that women can never hop to be liberated in any sense if they are denied the right to control their bodies especially their reproductive organs.”.
This anti-uterus attitude may lead a woman to decide not to have baby. This kind of protest will never come from a man, for he never has to go through this process. He can never even appreciate what is entails both physically and emotionally. It may also be noticed that with more and more awareness and enlightenments the woman feels unfulfilled with her tradition role. If child bearing the ultimate? Vicki Pollard says; “Natural childbirth has been glorified as the most beautiful moment in a woman’s life. This is unfortunate because it leads to the idea the motherhood is the ultimate experience in life”. But a woman is a human being, and her head and heart are no less clamoring for artistic and intellectual creativity apart from sheer procreation. Such rumblings of dissatisfaction and rebellion are reflected even in ancient Greek literature where wives had no part to play in the cultural pursuits, when that country was passing through its most elevating and productive phase in this history.
In Euripides’ “Medea”, the rebel woman spoke out thus:
“Sooner would I stand
Three times to face their battles,
Shield in hand,
Than bear one child”.
Such individuals have existed perhaps on every phase of history and every society. A few individual do not matter but if this feeling becomes collectively articulated and gains momentum as a movement then the survival of the human specie is threatened.
At this stage of the dialogue my immediate report was “ On the contrary the world is threatened with the burden of overpopulation ; we are two billion too many ; in this context it is ridiculous to imagine that the human specie is threatened with extinction, or ever will be in the procreative sense. To this Allama Parwez referred to the liberation struggle waged by the women of Europe and north America. In the past two to three hundred tears. In time it has become more and more articulate and vocal. Already the copious anti-uterus literature is showing signs of dwindling population in those countries, and the omens liberation movement could lead those areas into a crisis. As the third countries (where the extra tow billions have been produced) develop and women gain awareness like the counterparts in the first world, similar literature and movements will blast the status quo. It will then become a world-wide crisis.
Now, the Quran is for all times. It visualizes the future possibilities and accordingly lays down guidelines. Surah 4, Verse 34 becomes applicable only in such a contingency. Otherwise it remains redundant. So, when the world is faced with such a crisis, women will be counseled against this attitude. Of course it if but natural that unless they are helped in eating the confidence and the certainty that marriage and mother hood is not the end of all experience, it will not show results. If this counseling fails and the anti0uterus movement shows no signed f abating, then sexual indulgence, by and large becomes irrelevant. Sex is not for pleasure alone. The administration and the court can then decide on separation, husbands abstaining from sex and thereby putting psychological pressure on the wives. If even this does not bring any punishment, not the husband. Indeed the very idea of the husband beating the wife dishonors and demeans the wife consequently the family life. Above all, it goes against the very values of the Quran. “Quranic Approach towards change” published in Talu-e-islan of January 1990, I’ve taken the position tat these are local and historical and the nature of the punishments can change from time to time and place to place. Regional and local historical continuity, provided the punishments are not too barbaric – makes it easier to implement ; secondly the change is inevitable when the cultural level of the human mind reaches heights of the refinement and beauty. Some psychologists in the meantime accept corporal punishment as part of treatment.)
The rest of the verse emphases that is women retract from their stand, there is no vendetta involved. It may be repeated relatedness between husband and wife, where husbands arrogant to themselves the prerogative of beating their wives black and clue and throwing them out of their bedrooms. It is this misreading of the verse because of which wife-beating if so rampant in almost all Muslim countries. Even so-called educated husbands claim this “Quranic” right to beat their wives, and if they do not beat it is to be seen as a favor in a spirit of magnanimity!
Talking of “rebellion”, the Quran chides men and husbands as well in their role as protectors. They can also be “rebellious” in the sense that they ill-treat and desert their wives. Again it is the administration through its courts that arbitrate understanding between them and settle the money-matters on conditions that are workable.
Such are the details communicated by Allama Parwez on this very sensitive issue. The details are definitely out of the rut of traditional translations and certainly more convincing. In any case, it is worth pondering over and taking up the challenge for further research. It is difficult to give up ideas that have the sanction of history and centuries of time to back it up, even when these ideas are negative and unproductive. Nevertheless the effort must go on, for anything positive said or written is never lost.
TWENTY ONE YEARS OF PAKISTAN AND THE NEW WOMAN IN THE MAKING
The twenty-one years of Pakistan have come to mean much more to a women for, while for a man wider scope to the all ready existing though limited activities, to a women it meant the beginning of a change in her very “being”. The realization that it is one thing “to be” what one is, and quite another what one “ought to be” is a revolution. And when revolution comes there is bound to be a lot of sound and fury signifying tremendous possibilities, and the smugness of the upholders of the old values and systems is bound to receive many a rude and unexpected shocks. Their lot then is a perpetual harking back to the “good old days.”
But for a Pakistani women, the first disillusionment with the “good old days” came with the sad gory tale enacted in East Punjabi and other parts of Bharat with its repercussions in Pakistan. In this the female of the human specie was not even given a chance to die for what she believed or stood for. She was abducted and raped and made to live in shame and ignominy. Even her own people did not receive her happily for no fault of hers. All this raised many questions in her mind: Life is not easy, it is a mighty challenge; alongside beauty and harmony, there is ugliness and sordid realities. Should then a women be kept sheltered, hidden, absolutely innocent and oblivious of all this? Must not she be made tough, bold, self-confident and knowledgeable about the world she has to live in, move and have her being? Is innocence a virtue? Is sheltered piety and chastity an achievement? All these doubts penetrated our unthinking smugness and reverberated in private discussions and public debates. In sheer disgust at the 1947 happenings many discarded ‘purdah’ and with or without the cooperation of the family decided to venture into a world hitherto unknown, with all the hazards of inexperience and the hostility and antipathy of the environment.
Sometimes sheer necessity and hard realities of life and circumstances makes the society give in spite of itself. The British authorities and the public ridiculed and thwarted the efforts of the “suffragettes”, but when during the First World War they justified themselves by manning manifold activities behind the battle-lines, they got the right to vote as soon as the war ended. In the post-partition days the gruesome and colossal, problem of the refugees who poured into Pakistan into Pakistan, maimed and penniless, by the millions, needed first aid and care. Women, some of whom had till then hardly stepped out of their homes expect for certain conventionally accepted occasions-marriages, births, deaths and festivals—were now working shoulder to shoulder with men, sharing the national triumph and tragedy as never before. This experience was bound to open new avenues of service for them on a larger scale than it ever was in pre-partition days. There was no going back because they had achieved satisfaction in something that was more than just procreation. It was a case of an inner awakening, a conscious realization that she is not what she ought to be. There was a powerful though a vague restlessness within her for a fuller human life. Now, once this awakening has come, whether it is in a man or a woman, it has to follow its logical course. This is where I would like to strike a note of dissent, for it is high time that somebody did it, and this with reference to the “Westernization of Women.” I confidently assert that the slogan is misleading and unfair to the women of Pakistan for it detracts us form the real thing. No doubt that the dynamic impact of American leadership in almost every field includes also the cultural externalia of life. But these cultural tags adopted by women or men, for that matter, are a passing phase even in the land of their birth. What matters is the “inner awakening” and that is independent of nay influence. This awakening cannot be artificially injected, nor can it be suppressed for long once it comes. Its natural sequence is application of reason and logic, rejection of authority and the demand for conviction in answer to the question why? The human attribute of the freedom to choose asserts itself, independent thinking is manifested, search light is thrown on the inconsistencies
My plea is: As t is, the process of change is never easy. It is the most trying and difficult period of any nation’s history. We only make it more difficult by our irrational and unsympathetic attitude. whatever is happening anywhere in the world is a matter of cause and effect. Whenever we criticize or pass a judgment we should take this into consideration. I have analyzed just one probable cause above. Another could be the hypocrisy and false piety of the elders. In the West it could also be a reaction to the inhabitations and sexless ness of Christianity. An incomplete understanding of Freud’s psycho-analysis of the libido could be another. In short, what needs to be done is to find out the root cause and remove it. it is unfair to throw the whole onus on the emancipated women. It is unfair again that the men folk enjoying too free a license themselves, for this very reason, wish to enclose their wives and daughters in boxes, if it were possible.
So much for Westernization. The fact remains that in spite of everything, a Pakistani girl has a bad start in life. From the cradle, onwards to girlhood and womanhood, she is under unhealthy influences. Her very birth to begin with is an apology. Parents are generally offered consolation in the words of an old proverb—“rain of always preceded by a storm” (rain being a boy, storm a girl.) indeed there are very few homes where absolute unawareness of any discrimination between boys and girls pervades its atmosphere. Even the most wanted and beloved of daughters will soon come to know that she is the source of all evil on this earth. At every step the theory of Adman and Eve comes in her way. Eve was created from Adam’s rib, hence she is crooked! Any attempt to straighten her will break her. She is weak because she was easily misled by Stan to partake of the forbidden fruit (incidentally, the Satan could not influence Adam!) she is a wicked temptress because she tempted Adam to commit the original sin. Logically therefore she is the cause of our having lost Paradise, and logically again she will constitute the majority in hell. But the logic ends here and contradictions begin. Although she is the weaker vessel and the source of all evil( it is also said she has no soul) it is she on whom religious rites and ceremonies are imposed more rigidly and it is she who is to bear the greater responsibility of morality and righteousness (boys will be boys any way!) a very interesting contradiction emerges from another aspect of Adam and Eve story. Adam who was created first and started feeling lonely, so Eve was created for him to assuage his loneliness. In other words, the existence of a woman has no right of its own. The only justification of her existence is as to how much she can please and comfort a man, and she is stripped off all other human attributes. Ultimately, her role is restricted to procreation, all other human creative roles being denied to her. So far so good. But when the woman dutifully starts playing the roles assigned to her and flaunts her sex appeal around, the whole society screams out in horror. And when the woman makes an attempt to become more human with all this creative possibilities, she is described as an intellectual monstrosity, and one who is no longer “feminine”.
The Pakistani woman is in revolt against all these contradictions and such fallacious reasoning. By revolting no doubt she has challenged the established order that is not only considered right and natural because it has so many centuries behind it, but also considered unchangeable because it has the backing of priests who claim to speak on behalf of Divinity. All this demands tremendous courage, because her enemies can be formidable of she acts cowardly. Also the impact o f her rebellion tells heavily on human relationship, and entails many a conflict, mistakes, tragedies and heartbreaks.
The most grievously effected is the husband-wife relationship. Let us face it, now that we are on this subject that all is not well with the majority of our young married couples. Even though our girls are generally conditioned to be ready to give without expecting to receive, and to be ready adaptable without a corresponding response from the other side, there is trouble. Why? The reason is not far to seek.: The woman is changing, while the man is not. Contrary to the Adam and Eve theory she insists on asserting that she is not a plaything but a human being with all its potentialities of free will and self expression, and rights and duties. The husband is not ready to concede her this. He still harps on the evil role of Eve, and considers himself a degree above his wife. He is the master, the “Majazi Khuda” whom she must obey unquestioningly. Her arguments against this anti-human approach are shouted down by quotations from all kinds of religious and secular authorities. “A woman has no should,” “she is the weaker –vessel,”” she is an uisulaqal,” Vanity, Frailty, “thy name is woman,” “a woman should never be trusted”, and in any case “a woman was created for man”. This are the efforts of a woman at mature equal companionship set at naught.
In fact the man is taken aback at the changing image of his ideal woman. In the place of the shy, giggling, jointing, decorated doll, at best charming, there is one who is becoming more poised, self-confident, more interesting, well informed and thoughtful. Indeed there is a new woman in the making and the man I not yet prepared for this phenomenon. He still looks around for his lost dill and finds a solution by marrying a pretty little thing, sweetly unreasonable whom he can mould according to his own philosophy. If man also were to start changing, as a few here and there have, he would discern in the changing woman a comradeship and happiness hitherto unknown to him.
The wife would then be not just the mother of his children, but much more than that. The two classes of women that the societies all over the world have maintained in some form or other, may happily be a thing of the part—an obedient, unthinking healthy wife, the mother of children and the cultured courtesan as a professional companion.
However, the unchanging man is not the only stumbling block in the way of mutual adjustment. It so happens that the lives of even highly educated women being generally sheltered and limited compared to the freer and move varied experienced of the men results in a mental gap that is bound to keep them apart. Furthermore it is taken for granted that men have a fling of life, so to say, before they are married. To them marriage is more of a settling down as it were, to rest and be taken care of after the excitement and experiences of all kinds. To a woman marriage is just the beginning of a new exciting life, a break of some kind from the exaggerated innocence of a sheltered existence. These two mental conditions are sure to clash, followed by irritation on one side and frustration on the other. Thus married life, which even in normal conditions demands tremendous mutual efforts to succeed, is passing through a crisis. Such are the travails of the birth is a new way of life.
The changing woman and the unchanging man contend on leafier field too. The very idea of the women moving abroad and their more active participation in the national life is anathema to the established order. With or without “burqa” working as teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, executive officers, legislative members, stenographers and air-hostesses, and even such activities as shopping, visiting picture-houses and restaurants, although to some extent now taken for granted, is nevertheless lamented. It is still taken as the vicious influence of the West, and it is hoped that it may be a passing phase. We still think it is all wrong; after all, our grandmother and our great-grandmother never did this. By invoking the path of the forefathers, especially from the pulpits of the mosques, attempts are made to send the woman “back home” and make her more “respectable” thereby and misbehavior towards women is tolerated with impunity as never before for the simple reason that she has deviated from the traditional ways.
However, that is how it always is. The process of change is just another name for conflict, where the past and future grapple for supremacy. Until things have changes, that is, conflicts have been resolved, Pakistan shall remain, as it is today, a veritable tower of Babel, everybody confused and nobody understanding anybody else. The Pakistani woman has her share of the confusion too. Though she does not want to turn back, yet she wants to be accepted by the family and the environment. She is keen to venture fourth on grounds her grand-mother did not dare to tread, and yet she does not want to loose the sense of identification with the people as a whole. There are very few who can bear the burden and loneliness of a changing developing personality. So we see non-burqa, desegregated, free and educated young women more keen on wearing microscopic copies of the Quran in a gold case hung by a chain round the neck; expressing faith and devotion to the tomb of Data Ganj Baksh and other saints, strictly observing the month of Ramadhan, holding “Milad-Sheriff” sessions, and very spiritually covering their heads with their diaphanous “doputtas” at the call of the Muazzin. These are the little shields by which they think they can ward off the attacks on their changing statues. There are others who surrender and accept a secondary role, saying that women ought to look up to men, and some even become a mans plaything again flaunting their sex appeal around.
Out of this confusion and anarchy one single factor that emerges solidly in favor of women is their economic independence through careers. Neither their inner awakening nor their education alone could have given them the measure of freedom and self-confidence that they may possess today. To begin with it was primarily due to economic dependence on him that man was able to subjugate the woman.
The other factor is the Muslim Family Laws. It is both a reflection of the changing process and a guide to future development. The credit goes entirely to President Ayub. Before 1958 the Government neither cared nor fared to defy the priests and make laws more in conformity with the Quran. By restricting polygamy, making the registrations of the “nikah” legally binding, by regulating divorce procedures and by fixing the minimum age limit of 16 and 18 years for boys and girls respectively, a healthy atmosphere has been created and family life given more dignity. Even an uneducated woman in the rural area is aware however incompletely or vaguely, that she has been given more rights that she is freer than she was before. The impact of the Muslim Family Laws on women could be an interesting subject for research.
It is strange that man from the beginning of history has not learnt to live with woman. This observation becomes all the more strange in the light of the fact that nobody is born without a woman—respectively called a mother, but a woman nevertheless. Against her subjugation, the rebel woman of ancient Greece spoke out those in Euripides “Medea”.
“Sooner would I stand
Three times to face the battles, shielded in hand,
Than bear one child.”
In modern times Ibsen’s rebel woman refused to be a “doll” and live in a “Doll’s House”.
It is also beyond a Pakistani rebel woman’s comprehensions as to why a man would want to degrade her role or treat her like a doll, and raise unnecessary controversies.
The whole issue can be stated as simply as follows.
A human being, unlike any other creation has a “personality” or “Self” that is expressed through his free will. He has the freedom to choose from any number of given possibilities. He is born with powerful latent potentialities that develop and realize themselves through a total and active participation in life on this earth. He is also gifted with varied individual talents that demand creative manifestation through befitting opportunities and in an atmosphere free from inhibitions. A human being is the only created being who has these creative urges and is capable of improvement. All these innate attributes are so powerful that non-fulfillment of any of them results in frustration and caricaturist.
Now for the perpetuation of this wondrous specie, the Creator has designed its procreation through its make and female. By virtue of being a male of female neither ceases to be a human being. In other words, the make is a father within the human specie and the female a mother within the human specie. All these controversies as to whether a woman should be educated or not, should have a career or not, should move out of the house or not are such meaningless and wasteful exercises, and so naïve and immature. What matters, in the ultimate analysis, is the self expression of a human being in this totality. Each human being must find its own course for its own fulfillment. That is its birth-right and its denial is to contradict its Creator and by contradicting the Creator one does not change the situation, it only results in imbalance and suffering.
So why waste out energies and resources and time on these futile controversies? It is obvious that in the past twenty-one years the Pakistan woman could have done a lot more. The call of our poverty-stricken, custom-ridden, over-populated and diseased society has not been responded to as it should have, controversy and confusion has misled her energies toward trivialities and sham shows.
Perhaps the best thing for a woman would be to take her birthright for granted and quietly and steadily harmonies, whatever little education and freedom she has acquired, wither individual self-expression.
But for a Pakistani women, the first disillusionment with the “good old days” came with the sad gory tale enacted in East Punjabi and other parts of Bharat with its repercussions in Pakistan. In this the female of the human specie was not even given a chance to die for what she believed or stood for. She was abducted and raped and made to live in shame and ignominy. Even her own people did not receive her happily for no fault of hers. All this raised many questions in her mind: Life is not easy, it is a mighty challenge; alongside beauty and harmony, there is ugliness and sordid realities. Should then a women be kept sheltered, hidden, absolutely innocent and oblivious of all this? Must not she be made tough, bold, self-confident and knowledgeable about the world she has to live in, move and have her being? Is innocence a virtue? Is sheltered piety and chastity an achievement? All these doubts penetrated our unthinking smugness and reverberated in private discussions and public debates. In sheer disgust at the 1947 happenings many discarded ‘purdah’ and with or without the cooperation of the family decided to venture into a world hitherto unknown, with all the hazards of inexperience and the hostility and antipathy of the environment.
Sometimes sheer necessity and hard realities of life and circumstances makes the society give in spite of itself. The British authorities and the public ridiculed and thwarted the efforts of the “suffragettes”, but when during the First World War they justified themselves by manning manifold activities behind the battle-lines, they got the right to vote as soon as the war ended. In the post-partition days the gruesome and colossal, problem of the refugees who poured into Pakistan into Pakistan, maimed and penniless, by the millions, needed first aid and care. Women, some of whom had till then hardly stepped out of their homes expect for certain conventionally accepted occasions-marriages, births, deaths and festivals—were now working shoulder to shoulder with men, sharing the national triumph and tragedy as never before. This experience was bound to open new avenues of service for them on a larger scale than it ever was in pre-partition days. There was no going back because they had achieved satisfaction in something that was more than just procreation. It was a case of an inner awakening, a conscious realization that she is not what she ought to be. There was a powerful though a vague restlessness within her for a fuller human life. Now, once this awakening has come, whether it is in a man or a woman, it has to follow its logical course. This is where I would like to strike a note of dissent, for it is high time that somebody did it, and this with reference to the “Westernization of Women.” I confidently assert that the slogan is misleading and unfair to the women of Pakistan for it detracts us form the real thing. No doubt that the dynamic impact of American leadership in almost every field includes also the cultural externalia of life. But these cultural tags adopted by women or men, for that matter, are a passing phase even in the land of their birth. What matters is the “inner awakening” and that is independent of nay influence. This awakening cannot be artificially injected, nor can it be suppressed for long once it comes. Its natural sequence is application of reason and logic, rejection of authority and the demand for conviction in answer to the question why? The human attribute of the freedom to choose asserts itself, independent thinking is manifested, search light is thrown on the inconsistencies
My plea is: As t is, the process of change is never easy. It is the most trying and difficult period of any nation’s history. We only make it more difficult by our irrational and unsympathetic attitude. whatever is happening anywhere in the world is a matter of cause and effect. Whenever we criticize or pass a judgment we should take this into consideration. I have analyzed just one probable cause above. Another could be the hypocrisy and false piety of the elders. In the West it could also be a reaction to the inhabitations and sexless ness of Christianity. An incomplete understanding of Freud’s psycho-analysis of the libido could be another. In short, what needs to be done is to find out the root cause and remove it. it is unfair to throw the whole onus on the emancipated women. It is unfair again that the men folk enjoying too free a license themselves, for this very reason, wish to enclose their wives and daughters in boxes, if it were possible.
So much for Westernization. The fact remains that in spite of everything, a Pakistani girl has a bad start in life. From the cradle, onwards to girlhood and womanhood, she is under unhealthy influences. Her very birth to begin with is an apology. Parents are generally offered consolation in the words of an old proverb—“rain of always preceded by a storm” (rain being a boy, storm a girl.) indeed there are very few homes where absolute unawareness of any discrimination between boys and girls pervades its atmosphere. Even the most wanted and beloved of daughters will soon come to know that she is the source of all evil on this earth. At every step the theory of Adman and Eve comes in her way. Eve was created from Adam’s rib, hence she is crooked! Any attempt to straighten her will break her. She is weak because she was easily misled by Stan to partake of the forbidden fruit (incidentally, the Satan could not influence Adam!) she is a wicked temptress because she tempted Adam to commit the original sin. Logically therefore she is the cause of our having lost Paradise, and logically again she will constitute the majority in hell. But the logic ends here and contradictions begin. Although she is the weaker vessel and the source of all evil( it is also said she has no soul) it is she on whom religious rites and ceremonies are imposed more rigidly and it is she who is to bear the greater responsibility of morality and righteousness (boys will be boys any way!) a very interesting contradiction emerges from another aspect of Adam and Eve story. Adam who was created first and started feeling lonely, so Eve was created for him to assuage his loneliness. In other words, the existence of a woman has no right of its own. The only justification of her existence is as to how much she can please and comfort a man, and she is stripped off all other human attributes. Ultimately, her role is restricted to procreation, all other human creative roles being denied to her. So far so good. But when the woman dutifully starts playing the roles assigned to her and flaunts her sex appeal around, the whole society screams out in horror. And when the woman makes an attempt to become more human with all this creative possibilities, she is described as an intellectual monstrosity, and one who is no longer “feminine”.
The Pakistani woman is in revolt against all these contradictions and such fallacious reasoning. By revolting no doubt she has challenged the established order that is not only considered right and natural because it has so many centuries behind it, but also considered unchangeable because it has the backing of priests who claim to speak on behalf of Divinity. All this demands tremendous courage, because her enemies can be formidable of she acts cowardly. Also the impact o f her rebellion tells heavily on human relationship, and entails many a conflict, mistakes, tragedies and heartbreaks.
The most grievously effected is the husband-wife relationship. Let us face it, now that we are on this subject that all is not well with the majority of our young married couples. Even though our girls are generally conditioned to be ready to give without expecting to receive, and to be ready adaptable without a corresponding response from the other side, there is trouble. Why? The reason is not far to seek.: The woman is changing, while the man is not. Contrary to the Adam and Eve theory she insists on asserting that she is not a plaything but a human being with all its potentialities of free will and self expression, and rights and duties. The husband is not ready to concede her this. He still harps on the evil role of Eve, and considers himself a degree above his wife. He is the master, the “Majazi Khuda” whom she must obey unquestioningly. Her arguments against this anti-human approach are shouted down by quotations from all kinds of religious and secular authorities. “A woman has no should,” “she is the weaker –vessel,”” she is an uisulaqal,” Vanity, Frailty, “thy name is woman,” “a woman should never be trusted”, and in any case “a woman was created for man”. This are the efforts of a woman at mature equal companionship set at naught.
In fact the man is taken aback at the changing image of his ideal woman. In the place of the shy, giggling, jointing, decorated doll, at best charming, there is one who is becoming more poised, self-confident, more interesting, well informed and thoughtful. Indeed there is a new woman in the making and the man I not yet prepared for this phenomenon. He still looks around for his lost dill and finds a solution by marrying a pretty little thing, sweetly unreasonable whom he can mould according to his own philosophy. If man also were to start changing, as a few here and there have, he would discern in the changing woman a comradeship and happiness hitherto unknown to him.
The wife would then be not just the mother of his children, but much more than that. The two classes of women that the societies all over the world have maintained in some form or other, may happily be a thing of the part—an obedient, unthinking healthy wife, the mother of children and the cultured courtesan as a professional companion.
However, the unchanging man is not the only stumbling block in the way of mutual adjustment. It so happens that the lives of even highly educated women being generally sheltered and limited compared to the freer and move varied experienced of the men results in a mental gap that is bound to keep them apart. Furthermore it is taken for granted that men have a fling of life, so to say, before they are married. To them marriage is more of a settling down as it were, to rest and be taken care of after the excitement and experiences of all kinds. To a woman marriage is just the beginning of a new exciting life, a break of some kind from the exaggerated innocence of a sheltered existence. These two mental conditions are sure to clash, followed by irritation on one side and frustration on the other. Thus married life, which even in normal conditions demands tremendous mutual efforts to succeed, is passing through a crisis. Such are the travails of the birth is a new way of life.
The changing woman and the unchanging man contend on leafier field too. The very idea of the women moving abroad and their more active participation in the national life is anathema to the established order. With or without “burqa” working as teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, executive officers, legislative members, stenographers and air-hostesses, and even such activities as shopping, visiting picture-houses and restaurants, although to some extent now taken for granted, is nevertheless lamented. It is still taken as the vicious influence of the West, and it is hoped that it may be a passing phase. We still think it is all wrong; after all, our grandmother and our great-grandmother never did this. By invoking the path of the forefathers, especially from the pulpits of the mosques, attempts are made to send the woman “back home” and make her more “respectable” thereby and misbehavior towards women is tolerated with impunity as never before for the simple reason that she has deviated from the traditional ways.
However, that is how it always is. The process of change is just another name for conflict, where the past and future grapple for supremacy. Until things have changes, that is, conflicts have been resolved, Pakistan shall remain, as it is today, a veritable tower of Babel, everybody confused and nobody understanding anybody else. The Pakistani woman has her share of the confusion too. Though she does not want to turn back, yet she wants to be accepted by the family and the environment. She is keen to venture fourth on grounds her grand-mother did not dare to tread, and yet she does not want to loose the sense of identification with the people as a whole. There are very few who can bear the burden and loneliness of a changing developing personality. So we see non-burqa, desegregated, free and educated young women more keen on wearing microscopic copies of the Quran in a gold case hung by a chain round the neck; expressing faith and devotion to the tomb of Data Ganj Baksh and other saints, strictly observing the month of Ramadhan, holding “Milad-Sheriff” sessions, and very spiritually covering their heads with their diaphanous “doputtas” at the call of the Muazzin. These are the little shields by which they think they can ward off the attacks on their changing statues. There are others who surrender and accept a secondary role, saying that women ought to look up to men, and some even become a mans plaything again flaunting their sex appeal around.
Out of this confusion and anarchy one single factor that emerges solidly in favor of women is their economic independence through careers. Neither their inner awakening nor their education alone could have given them the measure of freedom and self-confidence that they may possess today. To begin with it was primarily due to economic dependence on him that man was able to subjugate the woman.
The other factor is the Muslim Family Laws. It is both a reflection of the changing process and a guide to future development. The credit goes entirely to President Ayub. Before 1958 the Government neither cared nor fared to defy the priests and make laws more in conformity with the Quran. By restricting polygamy, making the registrations of the “nikah” legally binding, by regulating divorce procedures and by fixing the minimum age limit of 16 and 18 years for boys and girls respectively, a healthy atmosphere has been created and family life given more dignity. Even an uneducated woman in the rural area is aware however incompletely or vaguely, that she has been given more rights that she is freer than she was before. The impact of the Muslim Family Laws on women could be an interesting subject for research.
It is strange that man from the beginning of history has not learnt to live with woman. This observation becomes all the more strange in the light of the fact that nobody is born without a woman—respectively called a mother, but a woman nevertheless. Against her subjugation, the rebel woman of ancient Greece spoke out those in Euripides “Medea”.
“Sooner would I stand
Three times to face the battles, shielded in hand,
Than bear one child.”
In modern times Ibsen’s rebel woman refused to be a “doll” and live in a “Doll’s House”.
It is also beyond a Pakistani rebel woman’s comprehensions as to why a man would want to degrade her role or treat her like a doll, and raise unnecessary controversies.
The whole issue can be stated as simply as follows.
A human being, unlike any other creation has a “personality” or “Self” that is expressed through his free will. He has the freedom to choose from any number of given possibilities. He is born with powerful latent potentialities that develop and realize themselves through a total and active participation in life on this earth. He is also gifted with varied individual talents that demand creative manifestation through befitting opportunities and in an atmosphere free from inhibitions. A human being is the only created being who has these creative urges and is capable of improvement. All these innate attributes are so powerful that non-fulfillment of any of them results in frustration and caricaturist.
Now for the perpetuation of this wondrous specie, the Creator has designed its procreation through its make and female. By virtue of being a male of female neither ceases to be a human being. In other words, the make is a father within the human specie and the female a mother within the human specie. All these controversies as to whether a woman should be educated or not, should have a career or not, should move out of the house or not are such meaningless and wasteful exercises, and so naïve and immature. What matters, in the ultimate analysis, is the self expression of a human being in this totality. Each human being must find its own course for its own fulfillment. That is its birth-right and its denial is to contradict its Creator and by contradicting the Creator one does not change the situation, it only results in imbalance and suffering.
So why waste out energies and resources and time on these futile controversies? It is obvious that in the past twenty-one years the Pakistan woman could have done a lot more. The call of our poverty-stricken, custom-ridden, over-populated and diseased society has not been responded to as it should have, controversy and confusion has misled her energies toward trivialities and sham shows.
Perhaps the best thing for a woman would be to take her birthright for granted and quietly and steadily harmonies, whatever little education and freedom she has acquired, wither individual self-expression.
Truth About A “Muslim’s” Attitude Towards Women
(Note: I will be using the term “Muslim” in its wide spread conventional connotation, distinct from the Quranic concept and meaning of it. in the context of this article, it denotes a community of men born and brought up in historical traditions and institutions with particular beliefs and attitudes. They are “Muslims” for no other reason than that for generations they have been called by that name. In other words, their birth and environment alone entitles them to be described as such irrespective of their choice and understand of the term. Above all, as pointed out earlier he term does not necessarily have any link with the Quran. The behavior of a conventional “Muslim” may only accidentally conform to or belief the Quran, just as much as the behavior of a Hindu and a Christian, a capitalist and a communist. In general, the attitude of men towards women is not above criticism. The subjugation of women in some form or the other has been an universal evil. I dealt with the causes of women’s subjugation in my previous article. In the following article I intend to deal with the convention “Muslims” as a class by themselves.)
Without beating about the bush, let me at the very outset, take my readers, we the womenfolk, are living in a disturbingly painful and ever-present sense of insecurity. It is an insecurity of a kind that carries with it an everlasting humiliation, an inexpressible ugliness, a sham that ultimately ends up in self hate, in the loss of any pride and self-respect that woman has. How many women can go back home and repeat or describe to their family members the ugly passes that were made at them, and the exact indecent and smutty remarks that were hurled at them? No! She cannot repeat or describe them. She lives with this poison; she feeds her own blood; it eats into the very vitals of all that could be beautiful and healthy. Oh Lord! How those vulturous nude eyes glare at her, shamelessly cutting through her ; that perversely sexy and brazen faced look which , it pains me to say so, the world today can only identify with the “ Muslim” eyes—a woman is constantly running away from them, dithering away into the security of her home after her day’s work. A woman who leaves her home in the morning to study. To teach, to minister unto her attaints, to shop the family’s daily requirements—is a perpetual source of anxiety to the rest of family members. Not until she is back home safe, can they sit back and heave a sigh of relief. And this goes on day after day; the family is all nerves, all jitters, with never a ray of hope, with never a moment of respite. There is no protest from the public, no protection from the authorities. If any one tries to bring to the motive of others the existing state of affairs, there comes an indifferent and a “pious” retort : Why don’t you lock your women in the homes? That is their rightful place, isn’t it?
obviously, according to them only bad women go out of their homes, and so they naturally invite bad treatment. From sometimes past this bad treatment has been exploited by religious demagogues, aided by their gutter journalism, to grind their own political axes. They have it a complexion of a religious duty. Sending women back home has become a means of achieving religious merit. Their vulgarity is now sacred. Their shamelessness is now virtuous. They have thus gained immunity from criticism,, condemnation and punishment.
Realizing this potential threat to the stability of the society, over a year ago, a group of student with whom I associated, made a public appeal “in the name of all that is decent and precious”, and asked; “Are we, the women of Pakistan, to expect no better treatment than this? Is it inevitable for Muslim woman to feel dishonored and insecure outside her home, simply because she lives in a Muslim society? We appeal to the intelligentsia to come forward and act, if not in the name of morality, then at least in the name of chivalry and gallantry. We warn you-to day this method may be used as a weapon and a means only, but if not checked in time, it may become a way of life. Retreat from there will not be an easy one”.
My fears are as to whether it has not already become a way of life!
I cannot imagine for a moment that Qaid-e-Azam visualized this in his Pakistan. No, not Qaid-e-Azam who had his sister Miss Fatima Jinnah, proudly beside him where ever he went in his public duties and programmes. And dear readers, I wonder how many of you are aware of Muhammad’s (pbuh) description of an Islamic Society? When questioned on the standard of judging as to whether a society has reached perfection, he replie:when a lone woman travels from Yemen to Syria with a complete sense of security, a society may be said to have achieved the standard Islam lays down. Indeed! There could not have been a better touchstone, and alas ! We are the furthermost from is compared to any other community in the world.
I have no intentions of starting another series of mutual recriminations and diatribes between men and women, on whose mutual understanding and harmony depends the future of our society. Enough mud-slinging has been done, and we have no time for any more emotional bouts. We have already wasted seventeen precious years in discussing intimately women’s hands and arms, they hair-do and dress in the National and Provincial Assemblies, in the newspapers, and from the pulpits in the mosque in every nook and corner of the country. The downright vulgarity and nakedness that marked these so-called public debates was more a manifestation of mental perversion than any concern for moral values. It is high time that we stopped all this and tried to analyze the causes of a “Muslim’s” attitude towards women dispassionately and objectively. What gave him his worldwide reputation of the owner of “harems”, and his never to be satisfied lust? Let us find it out and salvage his reputation for the future that is yet to be.
If we are ever to comprehend this very delicate and important issue, namely, relation between men and women, one thing will have to be borne in mine, that is, the nature of the sexual urge in a human being. Unlike his other important instinct, the instinct of self-preservation, sex is not a biological urge. The urge for food and drink is awakened irrespective of a human being’s thought process. The sex instinct on the contrary, is aroused by thoughts, thus distinguishing it from hunger and thirst as a biological urge, and entering into the realm of a psychological phenomenon. The general time-honored concept in our society is that sex is a biological urge, particularly in the male, implying thereby that his behavior is beyond his control, the idea being epitomized in a seemingly harmless phrase—“boys will be boys!” This is a dangerous attitude and a threat to the social equilibrium. The experts on the subject have proved it otherwise. The fact that it is no more than a psychological urge has been distinguished from hunger and thirst by the Quran as well. In Surah 2, verse 173, the Quran “forbids only carrion, and blood and swine flesh, and that which hath been immolated to the name of any other than Allah. But,” continues the nor transgressing, it is no crime for him.” Thus it is amply clear that the Quran recognizes hunger and thirst as a biological urge. It is not within man to be able to control it. Starvation inevitably means physical annihilation. To prevent this the forbidden is no longer forbidden. In contrast to this, in Surah 24, verse 33, the Quran points out; “And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste” till they find one. If sex were also a biological urge the Quran should have allowed sexual relationship with those with whom forbidden, in case one can find no match. But it suggests self-control indicating it to be a psychological phenomenon.
Now, this psychological urge, says Dr. J.D. Unwin in his masterly exposition on “Sex and Culture” depends on the extent of the “Sexual opportunity” provided in a given society. The wider the circle of sexual opportunity greater will be the possibilities and intensity of sexual urge. To clarify the point, I would invite the readers to ponder over the fact that even when men move freely in the “prohibited area”, that is, in the circle of mothers, sisters, daughters, maternal and paternal aunts, the very thought of sex does not occur to leave alone the awakening of the sexual urge, for the simple reason that sexual relationship with theses women is prohibited. Thus to keep the sexual urge of men in check, sexual opportunity should be reduced to the minimum and the prohibited areas should be widened to the maximum. Once this analysis is fully comprehended, the attitude of a “Muslim” towards women becomes understandable, though condemnable. The history of “Muslim” men is the history of unlimited sexual opportunity. This is the crux of the whole problem.
This opportunity finds its full expression in the institution of polygamy. In a monogamous system of marriage, the moment the man married, every other woman in the world enters the prohibited area. Not until he becomes a divorcee or a widower, can he think of another woman. Monogamy goes a long way in giving woman a sense of security. But a “Muslim” can think of any woman as his second, third and fourth wife. The avenues of unlimited opportunity are constantly open to him. Easy and irresponsible divorce, when a husband has merely to utter the word “divorce” thrice, further widens the area of sexual opportunity. Polygamy and easy divorce do not complete the story. Apart from four “harem” was enough to whet their appetite. Even today in our society, although a man may never marry more than one wife all his life, he knows that he can if he want to, and this makes all the difference in his attitude towards women. Thus the very concept of polygamy, easy divorce and slave girls will have to be done away with if women are to have any security in this society.
At this stage it become incumbent on me to explain the issue of polygamy in a little more detail, for it seems to be so inextricably glues to the conventional “Muslim”.
Let it be declared in unequivocal terms that the Quranic law is the law of monogamy. One man one woman is the rule. No man has the right to take more than one wife. Indeed! Polygamy is the very negation of a woman’s dignity and the beauty of married life.
In this law of monogamy, one exception has been made under extraordinary and abnormal circumstances which have so far been inherent in conditions of war. Men go forth to fight while women manage other departments behind the lines in all kinds of capacities. Prolonged war conditions reduce considerably the country’s manpower. It is inevitable that women will exceed in the number of men. This large number of widowed and unmarried women must be protected, sheltered and looked after in the fulfillment of heir basic needs of life. The society must tackle this issue in such a way that the dignity of human being is not hurt and undermined. It is possible that a society is so advanced economically that all women can work for themselves and achieve economic security and independence, and may not need the protection of a male bread winner. It is also possible that a society may have reached such an advanced stage of economic equilibrium that the basic needs of every individual are naturally fulfilled as a matter of right. If none of these conditions as yet prevail, a society may think of opening a “Home” for the unprotected women. But as the experience of orphanages and even “old age homes” have shown us, they are not “homes” – the inmates are more like outcastes in the society, stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Another alternative could e that they be absorbed in families as adopted “sisters,” and “daughters” but it is doubtful as to whether they still feel dignified, receiving everything as a matter of right. Living under the shadow of somebody’s magnanimity and favor is the worst form of attack on the dignity of a human being. Actually, it is up to the social order of the country to handle this delicate issue in such a way that there is not the slightest suggestion of humiliation.
law of monogamy to meet his emergency, that is, women exceeding men by a big ratio. The relaxation had to be made by the state and not by the individual on his own. When a man takes more than one wife in such an abnormal situation, it will be as a service to the nation, as a heavy burden on his happy married life, and not by way of carnal pleasure. When the state does make this relaxation, that is, when there is no other way out of this impasse, it is still not binding on the men—they may marry only if they can do justice. ( It is interesting to note that the word “justice” and not “love” used this is a proof of monogamy being the only possible state of happy married life on can do equal justice to even an enemy, but one cannot love four people equally at the same time.)
Those who know the happiness and joy of a monogamous marriage can realize that this duty cannot be very happily performed. Khalifah Omar (Allah be pleased with him!) himself had to ask his friends to take his widowed daughter in marriage, and they did not.
One thing must be borne in mind : This relaxation in the monogamous system has been made because in this way a woman is given a home where she retains her dignity and exercises command which only a wife can exercise. She lives in the house by way of her right and not by favor and charity of anyone.
It is obvious now that when such an emergency does not exist—for example in Pakistan men exceed women*—then there is absolutely no cause or justification for more than one wife. If they do no, they are leading un-Islamic lives.
Nothing could be more painful that to see attempts being made to justify polygamy on basis other than mentioned above. only a society that does not recognize women as human beings and whose concept of marriage is no more than the satisfaction of brute sexual lust, can coin up such inhuman and gruesome excuses as the first wife barren, or having contracted an infectious disease, or being inflicted with any physical disability, or disability in conjugal relation, and insanity. It is a thousand pity that have found sanction in the “Muslim Family Laws Ordinance” as well—am Ordinance that has been hated b our “Muslim” men (specially religious hierarchy) as giving too many rights to women! And, further more, those who talk in this manner do not realize that these arguments can boomer age on them. What for instance is a wife to do if her husband is barren or has contracted an infectious disease, is advisable and insane? What the conventional “Muslim” needs is a lesson in the rudiments of humanity.
Not only that polygamy is inhuman in this context only, it is interesting to note that “purdah” and segregation of the sexes is a natural aftermath of polygamy. A polygamous society that gives unlimited sexual opportunity to its males, women can never be secure and protected in it. they remain a perpetual source of sexual urge for man, so much so, that they have no other alternative but to hide from their unashamed gaze. “Purdah” and segregation is unknown in monogamous societies. Hindu women first observed “purdah” when Emperor Akbar laid the tradition of marriages between Muslims and Hindus. The Hindu women were no longer safe from the polygamous “Muslims”. Until then they moved about boldly, for as dark as “Muslims” were concerned, they were more or less in the prohibited area.
Here it may be pointed out that the western society, although monogamous by law are nevertheless immoral. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel a very erroneous conception that prevails amongst us regarding the western societies. Day in and day out, we are reminded of their immoral doings due to their absence of “purdah”, education of women, careers for women, and monogamous marriages,. With reference to the last mentioned Muslims argue that by legalizing four wives they have checked immorality, which the west can never achieve because of their monogamous sstem. I fail to understand as to how an immoral act can become moral by legalizing it!
As for the other factors, they have nothing to do with immorality. I am not convinced as to how education and careers for women, and desegregation of the sexes can make people immoral. The cause of immorality lies elsewhere….it lies in the change of values in the younger generations of Europe and America. They are no longer convinced that extra-marital relationship before or after marriage has any adverse or deteriorating effect on the society. For them it is just the right thing to do to satisfy their sexual urge. This is not immoral according to their new code values. Above all, “morals” in the West mean what is approved by the society, it is not considered as immoral, irrespective of the fact what people belonging to other societies think. Their behaviors should be judged according to what is approved and disapproved by them. After all, we do consider their eating of pork and drinking of alcohol as a part of their code of society. We know that they do not consider anything wrong in eating and drinking something that might abhor somebody else. So is their outlook on sex-life. If today the western societies discontinue education and careers for women and introduce “purdah” and segregation of the sexes, but their values on sex-life remain unchanged, there can be no restrain on their sexual behavior. Similarly, if our younger generation is going the western way, it is not because women are acquiring education and discarding “purdah”, but because they too like their western counterparts, are slowly beginning to doubt the efficacy of a strict moral code and its impact on the society as a whole. I am afraid that unless this problems is not looked at from this perspective, our social, cultural and educational progress will suffer a set-back. We are at a very delicate stage of our development, and a right or wrong decision can make or mar the fufture of many generations to come.
For centuries “Muslim” men have kept their women under house-arrest. Today they are staggering out in realization of their fundamental human rights, a little uncertain may be, but in complete wonderment at their own latent personalities and ever widening horizon of new avenues for exploration. But unfortunately to our” Muslim” men, a woman who moves out of her kitchen home for no purpose other than an evil one. Consequently, she has become the target of an organized, relentless and ruthless propaganda of a most obscene kind. Both on the individual and group level a only these self-righteous moralists read carefully Surah 4, verse 24 of the Quran which considers an unproved charge against an innocent woman the worst of crimes, they would think twice before they opened their mouths or picked up their pens.
And this is not all ! On the presumption that only bad women move out of their homes they think that they can take liberties with them, their theory is that if women are bad, how can men be good? There could not be a more derogatory thing that men could say about themselves. Individual integrity, personal character, self-control are qualities that men deny to themselves. Granted that all women who move abroad are evil women, where is man’s own sense of right and wrong, his own local development? Irrespective of a woman’s behaviors, a man should have his own values to stand by, just as so many women have stood and are standing the test irrespective of man’s immorality. I ask them : A man justified in going to her? To those who take liberties with women so as to drive them back home from colleges hospitals, and offices in the name of Islam with the plea that the fact that these women came out of their homes suggests that they are not good women, I ask: Does Islam allow them to go to the prostitutes?
We are supposed to be living in the second “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” We women have every right to ask the authorities in particular and the public in general as to whether we can expect a better treatment than the one we are getting at the moment. If there no one in this country who would come forward to protect us all? If not, all that I can do is to draw the attention of my readers to the duties of a Muslims society towards their women folk as explained in the Quran in Surah 33, verses 58,59,60,61,62.
When Muhammad (pbuh) and his people migrated from Mecca to Medina, they had to face a situation very similar to ours, except that the anti-social elements then comprised non-Muslims. They teased and maligned women and bore the guilt of slander. Since the Muslim migrants were not in a position of authority (somewhat like the Muslims minority in Bharat) and since the hypocrites or “Munafiqeen” made an excuse of not being able to recognize good women from bad, the women were advised to wear a cloak as a mark of distinction when they moved abroad. But of course that made no differences to the “Munafiqeen”. They did not cease teasing and annoying women, for their hearts were diseased. And now that Muhammad (pbuh) and his people were in authority, they were enjoined by the Quran to rise against these anti-social elements and take measures that would make it impossible for them to live there. If they continued to stay on and to misbehave, they were to be deprived of their rights of citizenship. The last resort was to inflict capital punishment only for cold-blooded murder, treason and not these habitual criminals who make the life of women perpetually insecure. The security of women is thus as important as the security of the state and human life. Indeed! A society where women are not secure and protected can never be a stable society, in fact its very survival will remain in jeopardy.
The Quranic further makes it clear that these were the measure taken by earlier societies under Divine Guidance, so much so, that whenever such a situation is repeated, that is, women are made to feel perpetually insecure, similar measure should be taken to cope with it. these measures are therefore unchangeable for all times. My contention, as stated in the very beginning, is that we the women of Pakistan are always painfully insecure. From an “Islamic State” we have every right to demand protection according to Quranic measures.
These measures of course, are only meant to cope a situation of emergency and abnormality. Something more will have to be done to change the attitude of “Muslim” men towards women fundamentally. This can be done by changing this “Muslim” concept to the concept that the Quran gives.
In the first place, polygamy must be made illegal through legislation. The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance only restrains polygamy, it does not abolish it. the Ordinance should be so improved that absolute monogamy becomes the Law of Pakistan, thereby conforming it with Quranic concept of marriage as explained above. With it must also go all concepts of slave girls and “harems”. These institutions may not be the vogue here as in Saudi Arabia, but the fact that the conventional “Muslim” believed that this is permissible in Islam makes all the difference in his attitude towards women. Hence these ideas should be educated out of their minds. The Muslim Family Law Ordinance needs to be improved on the issue of divorce. The husband still retains the monopoly in divorce matters. All that he has to do is to inform the chairman of the Union Council who makes an attempt at reconciliation. Hence there is no adequate protection for the wife. According to the Quran both husband and wife have the right to divorce. The Ordinance should include this concept and the judiciary of the country made the guardian of both the parties concerned.
Legislation on the basis of these concepts, aided by proper education, will reduce sexual opportunity to the minimum and widen the prohibited area to the maximum.
Next, it should be made known that the Quran expects absolute chastity from both men and women it does not tolerate any dual standards of sexual morality—one for man and the other for woman. In such a background the very concept of morality becomes meaningless. Above all, the Quran could not be expected to envisage a penal code where crime is no crime if undetectable! Thus it first addresses man I Surah 24, Verse 30, to be modest and chaste, and not caste lewd eyes around. In the succeeding verse, 31, it expects the women to do the same. This uniform standard alone can set the tone of a social behavior where woman can feel secure at any hour of the day or night at any place.
Furthermore, women must be places on equal legal footing with men (some legal aspects pointed out in the Quran I hope to deal with in my next article.) they must be told that they are human beings existing on their own right, and tat they were not created for man ! the woman called “Eve” is not a Quranic but a Biblical character, hence the prevailing Adam and Eve theory should be blown into smithereens, for nothing has lowered the position of women more than this theory. Once this theory is rejected, a woman will not flaunt her sex appeal around. Up till now she has been told that her only attribute is sex, and hence the only justification of her existence is sex. No moralizing will do her any good unless she is convinced that she is a human being, and as such equal to man. Thus when the Quran, in Surah 24, Verse 31, condemns the all out campaign for sex appeal among women, it is only because it recognizes her as a human being with all its manifold attributes and potentialities.
Without introducing these changes, Pakistani Society can never expect to be a vigorous one, and the level of its culture and productive everything will ever remain at a low ebb. I shall summaries the essence of this article in the world of Dr. J.D. Unwin in the way that only he could have done:
“Is, on the other hand, a vigorous society wishes to display its productive energy for a long time, and forever, it must re-create itself, I think, first, by placing the sexes on a level of complete legal equality and then by altering its economic and social organization in such a way as to render it both possible and tolerable for sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period, and even for ever. In such a case the dace of the society would be set in the Direction of the Cultural Process; it would achieve a higher culture than has ever been attained; by the action of human entropy its tradition would be argument and refined in a manner which surpasses our present understanding.”
In the end I would like to ask a question or two of our vulnerable religious divines!
For many years they have been crying hoarse about the equality of mankind and derisively pointing fingers at racial and color segregation and inequality in other countries. But at the same time they have launched a virulent and organized campaign against all those who state that women are equal to men. We women would like to know of them whether we are human beings or not. When they talk of human equality, do thy include women in it? this is my first question.
Another target of this theory of our religious divines is, and rightly enough, “original sin” among Christians and the caste system among the Hindus—theories based entirely on the factor of birth. Now, a woman is a woman because she was born such as. She never was given the chance to choose before her birth. Thus birth is the determining factor. Then are we to be punished for the “Crime” we never committed? A Christian woman gains hope by her faith in the crucifixation of Chirst. A Sudra hopes that if noting this, he may be a Brahman in the next birth. What hope has a Muslim woman? This is my second question.
The women of Pakistan demand a straight categorical answer. No side-tracking in legal quibbling will do any good. Are we or are we not Human Beings?
* Women are now said to be 51%
Without beating about the bush, let me at the very outset, take my readers, we the womenfolk, are living in a disturbingly painful and ever-present sense of insecurity. It is an insecurity of a kind that carries with it an everlasting humiliation, an inexpressible ugliness, a sham that ultimately ends up in self hate, in the loss of any pride and self-respect that woman has. How many women can go back home and repeat or describe to their family members the ugly passes that were made at them, and the exact indecent and smutty remarks that were hurled at them? No! She cannot repeat or describe them. She lives with this poison; she feeds her own blood; it eats into the very vitals of all that could be beautiful and healthy. Oh Lord! How those vulturous nude eyes glare at her, shamelessly cutting through her ; that perversely sexy and brazen faced look which , it pains me to say so, the world today can only identify with the “ Muslim” eyes—a woman is constantly running away from them, dithering away into the security of her home after her day’s work. A woman who leaves her home in the morning to study. To teach, to minister unto her attaints, to shop the family’s daily requirements—is a perpetual source of anxiety to the rest of family members. Not until she is back home safe, can they sit back and heave a sigh of relief. And this goes on day after day; the family is all nerves, all jitters, with never a ray of hope, with never a moment of respite. There is no protest from the public, no protection from the authorities. If any one tries to bring to the motive of others the existing state of affairs, there comes an indifferent and a “pious” retort : Why don’t you lock your women in the homes? That is their rightful place, isn’t it?
obviously, according to them only bad women go out of their homes, and so they naturally invite bad treatment. From sometimes past this bad treatment has been exploited by religious demagogues, aided by their gutter journalism, to grind their own political axes. They have it a complexion of a religious duty. Sending women back home has become a means of achieving religious merit. Their vulgarity is now sacred. Their shamelessness is now virtuous. They have thus gained immunity from criticism,, condemnation and punishment.
Realizing this potential threat to the stability of the society, over a year ago, a group of student with whom I associated, made a public appeal “in the name of all that is decent and precious”, and asked; “Are we, the women of Pakistan, to expect no better treatment than this? Is it inevitable for Muslim woman to feel dishonored and insecure outside her home, simply because she lives in a Muslim society? We appeal to the intelligentsia to come forward and act, if not in the name of morality, then at least in the name of chivalry and gallantry. We warn you-to day this method may be used as a weapon and a means only, but if not checked in time, it may become a way of life. Retreat from there will not be an easy one”.
My fears are as to whether it has not already become a way of life!
I cannot imagine for a moment that Qaid-e-Azam visualized this in his Pakistan. No, not Qaid-e-Azam who had his sister Miss Fatima Jinnah, proudly beside him where ever he went in his public duties and programmes. And dear readers, I wonder how many of you are aware of Muhammad’s (pbuh) description of an Islamic Society? When questioned on the standard of judging as to whether a society has reached perfection, he replie:when a lone woman travels from Yemen to Syria with a complete sense of security, a society may be said to have achieved the standard Islam lays down. Indeed! There could not have been a better touchstone, and alas ! We are the furthermost from is compared to any other community in the world.
I have no intentions of starting another series of mutual recriminations and diatribes between men and women, on whose mutual understanding and harmony depends the future of our society. Enough mud-slinging has been done, and we have no time for any more emotional bouts. We have already wasted seventeen precious years in discussing intimately women’s hands and arms, they hair-do and dress in the National and Provincial Assemblies, in the newspapers, and from the pulpits in the mosque in every nook and corner of the country. The downright vulgarity and nakedness that marked these so-called public debates was more a manifestation of mental perversion than any concern for moral values. It is high time that we stopped all this and tried to analyze the causes of a “Muslim’s” attitude towards women dispassionately and objectively. What gave him his worldwide reputation of the owner of “harems”, and his never to be satisfied lust? Let us find it out and salvage his reputation for the future that is yet to be.
If we are ever to comprehend this very delicate and important issue, namely, relation between men and women, one thing will have to be borne in mine, that is, the nature of the sexual urge in a human being. Unlike his other important instinct, the instinct of self-preservation, sex is not a biological urge. The urge for food and drink is awakened irrespective of a human being’s thought process. The sex instinct on the contrary, is aroused by thoughts, thus distinguishing it from hunger and thirst as a biological urge, and entering into the realm of a psychological phenomenon. The general time-honored concept in our society is that sex is a biological urge, particularly in the male, implying thereby that his behavior is beyond his control, the idea being epitomized in a seemingly harmless phrase—“boys will be boys!” This is a dangerous attitude and a threat to the social equilibrium. The experts on the subject have proved it otherwise. The fact that it is no more than a psychological urge has been distinguished from hunger and thirst by the Quran as well. In Surah 2, verse 173, the Quran “forbids only carrion, and blood and swine flesh, and that which hath been immolated to the name of any other than Allah. But,” continues the nor transgressing, it is no crime for him.” Thus it is amply clear that the Quran recognizes hunger and thirst as a biological urge. It is not within man to be able to control it. Starvation inevitably means physical annihilation. To prevent this the forbidden is no longer forbidden. In contrast to this, in Surah 24, verse 33, the Quran points out; “And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste” till they find one. If sex were also a biological urge the Quran should have allowed sexual relationship with those with whom forbidden, in case one can find no match. But it suggests self-control indicating it to be a psychological phenomenon.
Now, this psychological urge, says Dr. J.D. Unwin in his masterly exposition on “Sex and Culture” depends on the extent of the “Sexual opportunity” provided in a given society. The wider the circle of sexual opportunity greater will be the possibilities and intensity of sexual urge. To clarify the point, I would invite the readers to ponder over the fact that even when men move freely in the “prohibited area”, that is, in the circle of mothers, sisters, daughters, maternal and paternal aunts, the very thought of sex does not occur to leave alone the awakening of the sexual urge, for the simple reason that sexual relationship with theses women is prohibited. Thus to keep the sexual urge of men in check, sexual opportunity should be reduced to the minimum and the prohibited areas should be widened to the maximum. Once this analysis is fully comprehended, the attitude of a “Muslim” towards women becomes understandable, though condemnable. The history of “Muslim” men is the history of unlimited sexual opportunity. This is the crux of the whole problem.
This opportunity finds its full expression in the institution of polygamy. In a monogamous system of marriage, the moment the man married, every other woman in the world enters the prohibited area. Not until he becomes a divorcee or a widower, can he think of another woman. Monogamy goes a long way in giving woman a sense of security. But a “Muslim” can think of any woman as his second, third and fourth wife. The avenues of unlimited opportunity are constantly open to him. Easy and irresponsible divorce, when a husband has merely to utter the word “divorce” thrice, further widens the area of sexual opportunity. Polygamy and easy divorce do not complete the story. Apart from four “harem” was enough to whet their appetite. Even today in our society, although a man may never marry more than one wife all his life, he knows that he can if he want to, and this makes all the difference in his attitude towards women. Thus the very concept of polygamy, easy divorce and slave girls will have to be done away with if women are to have any security in this society.
At this stage it become incumbent on me to explain the issue of polygamy in a little more detail, for it seems to be so inextricably glues to the conventional “Muslim”.
Let it be declared in unequivocal terms that the Quranic law is the law of monogamy. One man one woman is the rule. No man has the right to take more than one wife. Indeed! Polygamy is the very negation of a woman’s dignity and the beauty of married life.
In this law of monogamy, one exception has been made under extraordinary and abnormal circumstances which have so far been inherent in conditions of war. Men go forth to fight while women manage other departments behind the lines in all kinds of capacities. Prolonged war conditions reduce considerably the country’s manpower. It is inevitable that women will exceed in the number of men. This large number of widowed and unmarried women must be protected, sheltered and looked after in the fulfillment of heir basic needs of life. The society must tackle this issue in such a way that the dignity of human being is not hurt and undermined. It is possible that a society is so advanced economically that all women can work for themselves and achieve economic security and independence, and may not need the protection of a male bread winner. It is also possible that a society may have reached such an advanced stage of economic equilibrium that the basic needs of every individual are naturally fulfilled as a matter of right. If none of these conditions as yet prevail, a society may think of opening a “Home” for the unprotected women. But as the experience of orphanages and even “old age homes” have shown us, they are not “homes” – the inmates are more like outcastes in the society, stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Another alternative could e that they be absorbed in families as adopted “sisters,” and “daughters” but it is doubtful as to whether they still feel dignified, receiving everything as a matter of right. Living under the shadow of somebody’s magnanimity and favor is the worst form of attack on the dignity of a human being. Actually, it is up to the social order of the country to handle this delicate issue in such a way that there is not the slightest suggestion of humiliation.
law of monogamy to meet his emergency, that is, women exceeding men by a big ratio. The relaxation had to be made by the state and not by the individual on his own. When a man takes more than one wife in such an abnormal situation, it will be as a service to the nation, as a heavy burden on his happy married life, and not by way of carnal pleasure. When the state does make this relaxation, that is, when there is no other way out of this impasse, it is still not binding on the men—they may marry only if they can do justice. ( It is interesting to note that the word “justice” and not “love” used this is a proof of monogamy being the only possible state of happy married life on can do equal justice to even an enemy, but one cannot love four people equally at the same time.)
Those who know the happiness and joy of a monogamous marriage can realize that this duty cannot be very happily performed. Khalifah Omar (Allah be pleased with him!) himself had to ask his friends to take his widowed daughter in marriage, and they did not.
One thing must be borne in mind : This relaxation in the monogamous system has been made because in this way a woman is given a home where she retains her dignity and exercises command which only a wife can exercise. She lives in the house by way of her right and not by favor and charity of anyone.
It is obvious now that when such an emergency does not exist—for example in Pakistan men exceed women*—then there is absolutely no cause or justification for more than one wife. If they do no, they are leading un-Islamic lives.
Nothing could be more painful that to see attempts being made to justify polygamy on basis other than mentioned above. only a society that does not recognize women as human beings and whose concept of marriage is no more than the satisfaction of brute sexual lust, can coin up such inhuman and gruesome excuses as the first wife barren, or having contracted an infectious disease, or being inflicted with any physical disability, or disability in conjugal relation, and insanity. It is a thousand pity that have found sanction in the “Muslim Family Laws Ordinance” as well—am Ordinance that has been hated b our “Muslim” men (specially religious hierarchy) as giving too many rights to women! And, further more, those who talk in this manner do not realize that these arguments can boomer age on them. What for instance is a wife to do if her husband is barren or has contracted an infectious disease, is advisable and insane? What the conventional “Muslim” needs is a lesson in the rudiments of humanity.
Not only that polygamy is inhuman in this context only, it is interesting to note that “purdah” and segregation of the sexes is a natural aftermath of polygamy. A polygamous society that gives unlimited sexual opportunity to its males, women can never be secure and protected in it. they remain a perpetual source of sexual urge for man, so much so, that they have no other alternative but to hide from their unashamed gaze. “Purdah” and segregation is unknown in monogamous societies. Hindu women first observed “purdah” when Emperor Akbar laid the tradition of marriages between Muslims and Hindus. The Hindu women were no longer safe from the polygamous “Muslims”. Until then they moved about boldly, for as dark as “Muslims” were concerned, they were more or less in the prohibited area.
Here it may be pointed out that the western society, although monogamous by law are nevertheless immoral. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel a very erroneous conception that prevails amongst us regarding the western societies. Day in and day out, we are reminded of their immoral doings due to their absence of “purdah”, education of women, careers for women, and monogamous marriages,. With reference to the last mentioned Muslims argue that by legalizing four wives they have checked immorality, which the west can never achieve because of their monogamous sstem. I fail to understand as to how an immoral act can become moral by legalizing it!
As for the other factors, they have nothing to do with immorality. I am not convinced as to how education and careers for women, and desegregation of the sexes can make people immoral. The cause of immorality lies elsewhere….it lies in the change of values in the younger generations of Europe and America. They are no longer convinced that extra-marital relationship before or after marriage has any adverse or deteriorating effect on the society. For them it is just the right thing to do to satisfy their sexual urge. This is not immoral according to their new code values. Above all, “morals” in the West mean what is approved by the society, it is not considered as immoral, irrespective of the fact what people belonging to other societies think. Their behaviors should be judged according to what is approved and disapproved by them. After all, we do consider their eating of pork and drinking of alcohol as a part of their code of society. We know that they do not consider anything wrong in eating and drinking something that might abhor somebody else. So is their outlook on sex-life. If today the western societies discontinue education and careers for women and introduce “purdah” and segregation of the sexes, but their values on sex-life remain unchanged, there can be no restrain on their sexual behavior. Similarly, if our younger generation is going the western way, it is not because women are acquiring education and discarding “purdah”, but because they too like their western counterparts, are slowly beginning to doubt the efficacy of a strict moral code and its impact on the society as a whole. I am afraid that unless this problems is not looked at from this perspective, our social, cultural and educational progress will suffer a set-back. We are at a very delicate stage of our development, and a right or wrong decision can make or mar the fufture of many generations to come.
For centuries “Muslim” men have kept their women under house-arrest. Today they are staggering out in realization of their fundamental human rights, a little uncertain may be, but in complete wonderment at their own latent personalities and ever widening horizon of new avenues for exploration. But unfortunately to our” Muslim” men, a woman who moves out of her kitchen home for no purpose other than an evil one. Consequently, she has become the target of an organized, relentless and ruthless propaganda of a most obscene kind. Both on the individual and group level a only these self-righteous moralists read carefully Surah 4, verse 24 of the Quran which considers an unproved charge against an innocent woman the worst of crimes, they would think twice before they opened their mouths or picked up their pens.
And this is not all ! On the presumption that only bad women move out of their homes they think that they can take liberties with them, their theory is that if women are bad, how can men be good? There could not be a more derogatory thing that men could say about themselves. Individual integrity, personal character, self-control are qualities that men deny to themselves. Granted that all women who move abroad are evil women, where is man’s own sense of right and wrong, his own local development? Irrespective of a woman’s behaviors, a man should have his own values to stand by, just as so many women have stood and are standing the test irrespective of man’s immorality. I ask them : A man justified in going to her? To those who take liberties with women so as to drive them back home from colleges hospitals, and offices in the name of Islam with the plea that the fact that these women came out of their homes suggests that they are not good women, I ask: Does Islam allow them to go to the prostitutes?
We are supposed to be living in the second “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” We women have every right to ask the authorities in particular and the public in general as to whether we can expect a better treatment than the one we are getting at the moment. If there no one in this country who would come forward to protect us all? If not, all that I can do is to draw the attention of my readers to the duties of a Muslims society towards their women folk as explained in the Quran in Surah 33, verses 58,59,60,61,62.
When Muhammad (pbuh) and his people migrated from Mecca to Medina, they had to face a situation very similar to ours, except that the anti-social elements then comprised non-Muslims. They teased and maligned women and bore the guilt of slander. Since the Muslim migrants were not in a position of authority (somewhat like the Muslims minority in Bharat) and since the hypocrites or “Munafiqeen” made an excuse of not being able to recognize good women from bad, the women were advised to wear a cloak as a mark of distinction when they moved abroad. But of course that made no differences to the “Munafiqeen”. They did not cease teasing and annoying women, for their hearts were diseased. And now that Muhammad (pbuh) and his people were in authority, they were enjoined by the Quran to rise against these anti-social elements and take measures that would make it impossible for them to live there. If they continued to stay on and to misbehave, they were to be deprived of their rights of citizenship. The last resort was to inflict capital punishment only for cold-blooded murder, treason and not these habitual criminals who make the life of women perpetually insecure. The security of women is thus as important as the security of the state and human life. Indeed! A society where women are not secure and protected can never be a stable society, in fact its very survival will remain in jeopardy.
The Quranic further makes it clear that these were the measure taken by earlier societies under Divine Guidance, so much so, that whenever such a situation is repeated, that is, women are made to feel perpetually insecure, similar measure should be taken to cope with it. these measures are therefore unchangeable for all times. My contention, as stated in the very beginning, is that we the women of Pakistan are always painfully insecure. From an “Islamic State” we have every right to demand protection according to Quranic measures.
These measures of course, are only meant to cope a situation of emergency and abnormality. Something more will have to be done to change the attitude of “Muslim” men towards women fundamentally. This can be done by changing this “Muslim” concept to the concept that the Quran gives.
In the first place, polygamy must be made illegal through legislation. The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance only restrains polygamy, it does not abolish it. the Ordinance should be so improved that absolute monogamy becomes the Law of Pakistan, thereby conforming it with Quranic concept of marriage as explained above. With it must also go all concepts of slave girls and “harems”. These institutions may not be the vogue here as in Saudi Arabia, but the fact that the conventional “Muslim” believed that this is permissible in Islam makes all the difference in his attitude towards women. Hence these ideas should be educated out of their minds. The Muslim Family Law Ordinance needs to be improved on the issue of divorce. The husband still retains the monopoly in divorce matters. All that he has to do is to inform the chairman of the Union Council who makes an attempt at reconciliation. Hence there is no adequate protection for the wife. According to the Quran both husband and wife have the right to divorce. The Ordinance should include this concept and the judiciary of the country made the guardian of both the parties concerned.
Legislation on the basis of these concepts, aided by proper education, will reduce sexual opportunity to the minimum and widen the prohibited area to the maximum.
Next, it should be made known that the Quran expects absolute chastity from both men and women it does not tolerate any dual standards of sexual morality—one for man and the other for woman. In such a background the very concept of morality becomes meaningless. Above all, the Quran could not be expected to envisage a penal code where crime is no crime if undetectable! Thus it first addresses man I Surah 24, Verse 30, to be modest and chaste, and not caste lewd eyes around. In the succeeding verse, 31, it expects the women to do the same. This uniform standard alone can set the tone of a social behavior where woman can feel secure at any hour of the day or night at any place.
Furthermore, women must be places on equal legal footing with men (some legal aspects pointed out in the Quran I hope to deal with in my next article.) they must be told that they are human beings existing on their own right, and tat they were not created for man ! the woman called “Eve” is not a Quranic but a Biblical character, hence the prevailing Adam and Eve theory should be blown into smithereens, for nothing has lowered the position of women more than this theory. Once this theory is rejected, a woman will not flaunt her sex appeal around. Up till now she has been told that her only attribute is sex, and hence the only justification of her existence is sex. No moralizing will do her any good unless she is convinced that she is a human being, and as such equal to man. Thus when the Quran, in Surah 24, Verse 31, condemns the all out campaign for sex appeal among women, it is only because it recognizes her as a human being with all its manifold attributes and potentialities.
Without introducing these changes, Pakistani Society can never expect to be a vigorous one, and the level of its culture and productive everything will ever remain at a low ebb. I shall summaries the essence of this article in the world of Dr. J.D. Unwin in the way that only he could have done:
“Is, on the other hand, a vigorous society wishes to display its productive energy for a long time, and forever, it must re-create itself, I think, first, by placing the sexes on a level of complete legal equality and then by altering its economic and social organization in such a way as to render it both possible and tolerable for sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period, and even for ever. In such a case the dace of the society would be set in the Direction of the Cultural Process; it would achieve a higher culture than has ever been attained; by the action of human entropy its tradition would be argument and refined in a manner which surpasses our present understanding.”
In the end I would like to ask a question or two of our vulnerable religious divines!
For many years they have been crying hoarse about the equality of mankind and derisively pointing fingers at racial and color segregation and inequality in other countries. But at the same time they have launched a virulent and organized campaign against all those who state that women are equal to men. We women would like to know of them whether we are human beings or not. When they talk of human equality, do thy include women in it? this is my first question.
Another target of this theory of our religious divines is, and rightly enough, “original sin” among Christians and the caste system among the Hindus—theories based entirely on the factor of birth. Now, a woman is a woman because she was born such as. She never was given the chance to choose before her birth. Thus birth is the determining factor. Then are we to be punished for the “Crime” we never committed? A Christian woman gains hope by her faith in the crucifixation of Chirst. A Sudra hopes that if noting this, he may be a Brahman in the next birth. What hope has a Muslim woman? This is my second question.
The women of Pakistan demand a straight categorical answer. No side-tracking in legal quibbling will do any good. Are we or are we not Human Beings?
* Women are now said to be 51%
Causes of Woman’s Subjugation
Woman Recreated
by Miss Shamim Anwar
Causes of Woman’s Subjugation
[Paper read at Tolu-e-Islam Convention on 8th April 1961]
This afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall place before you some very practical propositions regarding this eternal, (what I choose to describe as the) “Woman’s Question”. The subjugation of women has been the theme of many a cook, and the fact that women even today are merely a dim travesty of what they might be, is now universally recognized. What provokes my curiosity is as to when, how and why women became subjugated. What are those factors that have created and perpetuated a margin between the potential development of her personality and individuality and her actual animal existence? Why has the woman not been able to cross this margin? This is the question that has always worried me. Whatever I have learnt and discovered so far I shall attempt to present before this august assemblage most humbly, but frankly and uninhibitedly.
Woman, by virtue of being the female sex, has been bestowed upon by Nature an important biological function, namely, the perpetuation of the human race. In this role she inevitably becomes incapacitated for a considerable period of time. This incapacity means that she has to depend upon someone for her self-preservation, someone who is never incapacitated and disabled as she is. This someone, in the Nature’s scheme of things is the man. It is to this man that the woman has to look up to for her daily bread, a garment to cover herself, and a roof on her head. To be dependent in this manner is to be absolutely helpless, to be helpless is to be exploited.
For sheer self-preservation and above all, the preservation of her children, the woman suffered it all until this relationships dependence and dominance became a universal and a rigid pattern. In the course of time this pattern came to be looked upon as a very “normal” and “natural” one, for man seems to be so constituted that if anything is practiced by the majority and practiced for a long time, it is regarded as the right thing, and any opposition to it is “abnormal”, “unnatural” and of course “wrong”.
From the above we deduced that one factor in the subjugation of women is economic dependence on man. This factor becomes clear and understandable when we analyze the background of the two types of tribal organization, matriarchal and patriarchal. There have been instances when a really healthy woman did not feel the necessity of confinement. Before and after the birth of her child, she continued to work along with the men folk. Secondly, in some areas of the world, struggle for existence has been comparatively easier, so much so, that women have been able to share equally with men their economic pursuits. These places have witnessed the birth of matriarchal societies. But the places where these factors have been non-existence, emerged the patriarchal form of society of course, the patriarchal societies have been found in a majority, but the very fact that a few matriarchal tribes did exist, proves beyond doubt that once the economic dependence is removed, woman has a better chance of realizing her womanhood, and she can live as she ought to live. This is true not only of relationship between men and women, but also between men and men. Those who have monopoly over wealth, be they feudal lords, or capitalists or big business, have invariably exploited those who depend on them economically. The feudal lord exploits the toiling farmers, the capitalists his famished workers, the master in the house dominates the domestic servant, the boss bullies his immediate subordinate, the wealthy nations crush and repress the backward and poor nations, and man subjugates the woman. The kings too found in this economic factor a master plan to maintain their kingship. All that they had to do was to reduce the common man to poverty, and this make him busy in eking out his living.
It is interesting to note here that in this economic struggle and the emergence of the rich and poor classes, women became in the economic terminology, a class by themselves.
However, the story foes not end there. Having once enjoyed the power to command and domineer, neither the ruler of the ruled, nor man, the master of the woman, cares to give it up. If only the position of the patriarch, the king and the man, gained through economic control, be justified, they could rule forever. The justification was easily obtained. The custodians of the man-made religions declared that obedience to the king’s will is obedience to God, and that woman, being the cause of Adam’s banishment from paradise, is the source of all evil*. The question of reforming and improving her does not arise, became being born of Adam’s ribs she will break if attempt is made to straighten her. The woman’s bondage thus received a religious sanction. The idea of her being inferior because sacred, and as such it could not be touched. Furthermore this sacrosanct character made its way into secular literature, where in the form of idioms and proverbs, it gained ground in the minds of the people. Without any hesitation and any qualms we today talk about the educated women being “intellectual monstrosities”, of her being “sweetly unreasonable”, and we believe that “women should never be trusted”, for “frailty-thy name is woman”.
The impact of this centuries old experience and development has convinced woman herself that she is inferior to man. Indeed, it is this conviction of hers that constitutes the biggest hurdle in her emancipation.
Ladies and Gentlemen—bear patiently with me, for the end is not yet! Even if we do manage to secure economic security for the woman and prove to the people rationally that she is not inferior to man, it will not completely solve the “Woman’s Question”, for after all said and don’t, she is still a woman.
Unfortunately, in the course of the development of its culture and civilization, mankind evolved unhealthy and unnatural notions about sex. The origin of this development can be traced to the ancient times, when the realization that God has no parents and no children, that He was neither begotten nor does He beget, let the people erroneously to the conclusion that perfection and goodness is devoid of sex. This idea reached its culminating point in Christianity. The theory of Immaculate Conception, the virgin birth of Jesus, and the unmarried life that Jesus life, all proclaim the sinfulness and evil of sex. And then—wasn’t Eve who at the instigation of Satan tempted Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit so that they could achieve immortality through their offspring’s? Consequently, every child is born with the original sin, and faith in the “purity” of Jesus alone can wash it away, and the ideal man is he who can escape the woman—the temptress.
One by-product of this attitude is that the woman has come to be associated wit sex alone. All other attributes are denied her. The fact that a man cannot talk to a woman as he does to another man is the result of this attitude. Indeed! There could be no deeper humiliation than to be made to personify something that has already been stigmatized and condemned. I am convinced that as long as sex is considered dirty and sinful, a woman will never be respected. Man has shown respect only to those women with whom he cannot have sexual relationship. These women are his mother, his sisters, and his daughters.
These are the hard and unpleasant facts that we must face. There is no escape from them. A woman is born a woman, and she has to die a woman. Birth is the determining factor. A Shudra might one day be born a Brahman even after 34 corores of births and rebirths. But “all the king’s horses and all the King’s men” cannot change a woman into a man.
Here is a challenge of the “Women’s Question”. This challenge can be met by the Quran alone. It is only the Quranic social order that guarantees the fulfillment of the basic need of every individual. It leaves no scope for one man to dominate another simply because he is in a position to fling to him a morsel of food. Each individual gets his requirements as a matter of right and not on the chance emotional bouts of charity and favor of a philanthropist. The future of the woman therefore lies in the Quranic Nizam-I-Rububiyyat, that is, the economic security to all, for to be secure is to be free.
Furthermore, the Quran breaks down one by one the citadels of man-made religion by proclaiming to the world that there is absolutely no difference between a man and a woman. In Surah4, Verse 1, the Quran says: “Both male and female were created out of one single life cell.” Again it is stated: “Both men and women are honored and respected. All the children of Adam are respectable.” (17:70. “Both men and women are worthy of heavenly life on the basis of their actions and deeds.” (3:194). “Husband and wife have equal rights and duties.” (22:28). “Women can perform all those duties which men perform.” (33:35). All these Quranic verses make it amply clear that neither on the bases of birth nor on the basis of rights and duties can man claim superiority over woman. There is only one difference (not superiority) between a man and a woman, that is, the biological function of reproduction (Surah 4, verse 34) and indeed it is ridiculous to allocate exclusive characteristics to men and women on the basis of this biological difference. Hence there are no such things as masculine tastes and feminine tastes, masculine habits and feminine habits, masculine interests and feminine interests, and masculine talents and feminine talents. There is only one adjective for all tastes and habits—the adjective “human”. Here it may be argues that what we observe today is contrary to this description. There are definite and exclusive feminine interests. This is true. But “femininity” is not inherent in woman as a woman. At a certain stage in history, as pointed out earlier, woman was reduced to a certain position, and the characteristics resulting thereby were passed on from generation to generation, so much so, that they today appear as peculiar to women only. The purpose of my address to you is to help you to penetrate through the mist of the past.
Above all, the Quean has wrought a fundamental revolution in the attitude of mind towards sex. In Surah 30, verse 21, the Quran describes the relationship between husband and wife as that of companionship and love. It is a mutual feeling of restfulness and comfort. In this one verse alone the Quran has ripped off all taboos and stigmas and reinstated sex to its proper role. The woman is no longer an object for the gratification man’s lust but complementary to him.
Such are the Quranic values. Considering what the woman has undergone in the past, and is undergoing today, she has an extra responsibility for her own sake to leave no stone unturned to establish the Quranic social order, for in this social order lies her hope and her future
by Miss Shamim Anwar
Causes of Woman’s Subjugation
[Paper read at Tolu-e-Islam Convention on 8th April 1961]
This afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall place before you some very practical propositions regarding this eternal, (what I choose to describe as the) “Woman’s Question”. The subjugation of women has been the theme of many a cook, and the fact that women even today are merely a dim travesty of what they might be, is now universally recognized. What provokes my curiosity is as to when, how and why women became subjugated. What are those factors that have created and perpetuated a margin between the potential development of her personality and individuality and her actual animal existence? Why has the woman not been able to cross this margin? This is the question that has always worried me. Whatever I have learnt and discovered so far I shall attempt to present before this august assemblage most humbly, but frankly and uninhibitedly.
Woman, by virtue of being the female sex, has been bestowed upon by Nature an important biological function, namely, the perpetuation of the human race. In this role she inevitably becomes incapacitated for a considerable period of time. This incapacity means that she has to depend upon someone for her self-preservation, someone who is never incapacitated and disabled as she is. This someone, in the Nature’s scheme of things is the man. It is to this man that the woman has to look up to for her daily bread, a garment to cover herself, and a roof on her head. To be dependent in this manner is to be absolutely helpless, to be helpless is to be exploited.
For sheer self-preservation and above all, the preservation of her children, the woman suffered it all until this relationships dependence and dominance became a universal and a rigid pattern. In the course of time this pattern came to be looked upon as a very “normal” and “natural” one, for man seems to be so constituted that if anything is practiced by the majority and practiced for a long time, it is regarded as the right thing, and any opposition to it is “abnormal”, “unnatural” and of course “wrong”.
From the above we deduced that one factor in the subjugation of women is economic dependence on man. This factor becomes clear and understandable when we analyze the background of the two types of tribal organization, matriarchal and patriarchal. There have been instances when a really healthy woman did not feel the necessity of confinement. Before and after the birth of her child, she continued to work along with the men folk. Secondly, in some areas of the world, struggle for existence has been comparatively easier, so much so, that women have been able to share equally with men their economic pursuits. These places have witnessed the birth of matriarchal societies. But the places where these factors have been non-existence, emerged the patriarchal form of society of course, the patriarchal societies have been found in a majority, but the very fact that a few matriarchal tribes did exist, proves beyond doubt that once the economic dependence is removed, woman has a better chance of realizing her womanhood, and she can live as she ought to live. This is true not only of relationship between men and women, but also between men and men. Those who have monopoly over wealth, be they feudal lords, or capitalists or big business, have invariably exploited those who depend on them economically. The feudal lord exploits the toiling farmers, the capitalists his famished workers, the master in the house dominates the domestic servant, the boss bullies his immediate subordinate, the wealthy nations crush and repress the backward and poor nations, and man subjugates the woman. The kings too found in this economic factor a master plan to maintain their kingship. All that they had to do was to reduce the common man to poverty, and this make him busy in eking out his living.
It is interesting to note here that in this economic struggle and the emergence of the rich and poor classes, women became in the economic terminology, a class by themselves.
However, the story foes not end there. Having once enjoyed the power to command and domineer, neither the ruler of the ruled, nor man, the master of the woman, cares to give it up. If only the position of the patriarch, the king and the man, gained through economic control, be justified, they could rule forever. The justification was easily obtained. The custodians of the man-made religions declared that obedience to the king’s will is obedience to God, and that woman, being the cause of Adam’s banishment from paradise, is the source of all evil*. The question of reforming and improving her does not arise, became being born of Adam’s ribs she will break if attempt is made to straighten her. The woman’s bondage thus received a religious sanction. The idea of her being inferior because sacred, and as such it could not be touched. Furthermore this sacrosanct character made its way into secular literature, where in the form of idioms and proverbs, it gained ground in the minds of the people. Without any hesitation and any qualms we today talk about the educated women being “intellectual monstrosities”, of her being “sweetly unreasonable”, and we believe that “women should never be trusted”, for “frailty-thy name is woman”.
The impact of this centuries old experience and development has convinced woman herself that she is inferior to man. Indeed, it is this conviction of hers that constitutes the biggest hurdle in her emancipation.
Ladies and Gentlemen—bear patiently with me, for the end is not yet! Even if we do manage to secure economic security for the woman and prove to the people rationally that she is not inferior to man, it will not completely solve the “Woman’s Question”, for after all said and don’t, she is still a woman.
Unfortunately, in the course of the development of its culture and civilization, mankind evolved unhealthy and unnatural notions about sex. The origin of this development can be traced to the ancient times, when the realization that God has no parents and no children, that He was neither begotten nor does He beget, let the people erroneously to the conclusion that perfection and goodness is devoid of sex. This idea reached its culminating point in Christianity. The theory of Immaculate Conception, the virgin birth of Jesus, and the unmarried life that Jesus life, all proclaim the sinfulness and evil of sex. And then—wasn’t Eve who at the instigation of Satan tempted Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit so that they could achieve immortality through their offspring’s? Consequently, every child is born with the original sin, and faith in the “purity” of Jesus alone can wash it away, and the ideal man is he who can escape the woman—the temptress.
One by-product of this attitude is that the woman has come to be associated wit sex alone. All other attributes are denied her. The fact that a man cannot talk to a woman as he does to another man is the result of this attitude. Indeed! There could be no deeper humiliation than to be made to personify something that has already been stigmatized and condemned. I am convinced that as long as sex is considered dirty and sinful, a woman will never be respected. Man has shown respect only to those women with whom he cannot have sexual relationship. These women are his mother, his sisters, and his daughters.
These are the hard and unpleasant facts that we must face. There is no escape from them. A woman is born a woman, and she has to die a woman. Birth is the determining factor. A Shudra might one day be born a Brahman even after 34 corores of births and rebirths. But “all the king’s horses and all the King’s men” cannot change a woman into a man.
Here is a challenge of the “Women’s Question”. This challenge can be met by the Quran alone. It is only the Quranic social order that guarantees the fulfillment of the basic need of every individual. It leaves no scope for one man to dominate another simply because he is in a position to fling to him a morsel of food. Each individual gets his requirements as a matter of right and not on the chance emotional bouts of charity and favor of a philanthropist. The future of the woman therefore lies in the Quranic Nizam-I-Rububiyyat, that is, the economic security to all, for to be secure is to be free.
Furthermore, the Quran breaks down one by one the citadels of man-made religion by proclaiming to the world that there is absolutely no difference between a man and a woman. In Surah4, Verse 1, the Quran says: “Both male and female were created out of one single life cell.” Again it is stated: “Both men and women are honored and respected. All the children of Adam are respectable.” (17:70. “Both men and women are worthy of heavenly life on the basis of their actions and deeds.” (3:194). “Husband and wife have equal rights and duties.” (22:28). “Women can perform all those duties which men perform.” (33:35). All these Quranic verses make it amply clear that neither on the bases of birth nor on the basis of rights and duties can man claim superiority over woman. There is only one difference (not superiority) between a man and a woman, that is, the biological function of reproduction (Surah 4, verse 34) and indeed it is ridiculous to allocate exclusive characteristics to men and women on the basis of this biological difference. Hence there are no such things as masculine tastes and feminine tastes, masculine habits and feminine habits, masculine interests and feminine interests, and masculine talents and feminine talents. There is only one adjective for all tastes and habits—the adjective “human”. Here it may be argues that what we observe today is contrary to this description. There are definite and exclusive feminine interests. This is true. But “femininity” is not inherent in woman as a woman. At a certain stage in history, as pointed out earlier, woman was reduced to a certain position, and the characteristics resulting thereby were passed on from generation to generation, so much so, that they today appear as peculiar to women only. The purpose of my address to you is to help you to penetrate through the mist of the past.
Above all, the Quean has wrought a fundamental revolution in the attitude of mind towards sex. In Surah 30, verse 21, the Quran describes the relationship between husband and wife as that of companionship and love. It is a mutual feeling of restfulness and comfort. In this one verse alone the Quran has ripped off all taboos and stigmas and reinstated sex to its proper role. The woman is no longer an object for the gratification man’s lust but complementary to him.
Such are the Quranic values. Considering what the woman has undergone in the past, and is undergoing today, she has an extra responsibility for her own sake to leave no stone unturned to establish the Quranic social order, for in this social order lies her hope and her future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
