by Anwar Shaikh
Of all mundane problems, relationship between man and woman is the most significant. The
imbalance causes mutual friction leading to malevolence and misery. One of the major causes
of this abrasion is the fact that woman’s sexual appeal gives her command over man but his
psychological make-up goads him to establish dominance over her. To achieve this end, man
has invented religion which requires woman to obey man as god’s Will. Here is an excerpt from
Anwar Shaikh’s unpublished book “Sexual Conflict,” which disusses Islamic attitude towards
womanhood.
Islam portrays woman as a sexual toy for man. The rise of Benazeer Bhuto in Pakistan to
premiership exposes the fallacy of the Islamic doctrine, which has been upheld by the brute
force of sheer propaganda over the centuries.
Islam is not a code of life but an emotional trap prepared by the power-seekers to fool an snool
their fellowmen. Since it has never been enforced in the entire history of Islam, it cannot be a
divine code.
Being an offshoot of Judaism, Islam is governed by exactly the same legend as the Jews and
Christians but its interpretation of the Adam-Eve episode is completely different. It does not
recognise asceticism. Thus celebacy or contempt of womanhood forms no part of Islam. Though it
prescribes a whole month of formal fasting and believers are not allowed to eat or drink from dawn
till dusk, are permitted to indulge in sexual gratification from dusk till dawn if they so desire.
Compared to Judaism and Christianity, Islam confers certain rights on woman, and considering the
social condition, of that time, it raises the Prophet Muhammad to the status of a reformer. Of course,
Islam presented a patriarchal system as it had persisted in the Middle East from time immemorial,
but it sought to soften its impact on woman. A father still had the right to dispose of his daughter as
he thought fit, but if she became a widow or divorcee, her consent to remarriage had to be secured. It
gave certain property rights to women. It also laid down that a divorced woman was a free woman,
and the ex-husband must not retain her forcibly, as had become customary. Nor could he deter her
from remarrying by exerting pressure. The divorced woman, if pregnant, must be treated with
kindness and respect, and had the right to stay in her ex-husband’s house at his expense. However, if
she chose to leave, he must provide her with sufficient means of sustenance for a year. The prophet
raised the prestige of woman considerably by pronouncing that children’s paradise lay at their
mother’s feet, meaning that the key to Heaven lies in respecting and serving one’s mother.
Though a husband could divorce his wife at will, Islam gave her the right of Khula, i.e. the legal
right of separation, but she had to do so through the Shariah Court and had to prove her husband’s
cruelty and gross misconduct. The application of this law is to be seen in Khurshid Bibi v
Muhammad Amin (1967). The Pakistani Supreme Court decided that a Moslem wife could obtain a
divorce on demand but she had to pay suitable compensation to her husband.
Khula is a sound Islamic principle but it cannot be exercised on demand; the woman must prove the
guilt of her husband. Khula at will is an un-Islamic innovation like many other modifications entered
into the legal codes of Moslem countries in the name of Islam. For example, Tunisia has forbidden
polygamy as well as the husband’s power to divorce his wife at will, and it is all done on the
authority of the Koran.
Except KHULA and a limited right to inherit property, Islamic laws are repressive to the feminine
gender. Though the Moslems all over the world talk of Islamic rights of womanhood, the truth is that
a Moslem woman has no right except the right to please her man. In fact, she is treated as a bait of
conversion, and the reason for a Moslem to hold on to his faith. It is because Islam identifies
salvation with the paradise which is a place of sexual merriment and thus the abode of the most
beautiful women called houris, who are available to the followers of Islam only. What is a houri?
According to the Hadith TIRMZI (P.135-138).
1. A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her
bones is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like a red wine in a
white glass.
2. She is of white colour, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary
woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child-bearing,
and the related pollution.
3. She is a woman characterised by modesty and flexing glances; she never looks at
any man except her husband, and feels grateful for being the wife of her husband.
4. A houri is a loving woman, free from odium and animosity. Besides, she knows the
meaning of love and has the ability to put it into practice.
5. A houri is a recreated woman whose virginity has been restored. The lucky
believers who will have them, shall find them untouched.
6. A houri is an immortal woman. She speaks softly and does not raise voice at her
man; she is always reconciled with him. Having been brought up in luxury, she is a
luxury herself.
7. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large rising breasts which are round, and not
inclined to dangle. Houris dwell in palaces of luxurious surroundings.
To increase the sexual appeal of Islam, another hadith declares that man’s virility shall be increased
hundred-fold. Thus, Islam equates salvation with carnal pleasures which houris, the paradisiac
women provide, thus confirming woman’s role in Islam as the object of sexual pleasures.
Since Islamic appeal to man is based on its colourful concept of paradise, it seeks to place woman
under the strict control of man. Before mentioning some of its tenets concerning womanhood, it is
desirable to give an overview of the Islamic approach to the fair-sex, which regulates her conduct in
relation to man:
1. If a woman’s conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up
but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband
does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)
2. It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man except her husband when she is
made up or well-dressed. (TR. P 430)
3. A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey which may last three days or
longer, unless she is accompanied by her husband, son, father or brother. (TR. P 431 )
4. A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her husband’s father, brother
and other male relations. (TR. P 432)
5. She is forbidden to spend any money without the permission of her husband, and it
includes giving food to the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)
6. A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL) or observe fasting (other
than RAMADAN) without the permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)
7. If prostration were a legitimate act other than to God, woman should have
prostrated to her husband. (TR. P 428)
8. If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse woman must come immediately
even if she is baking bread at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)
9. The marriage of woman to her man is not substantive. It is precarious. For example
if the father of the husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do so. (TR. P
440)
10. A woman who seeks KHULA i .e. divorce from her man, without a just cause,
shall not enter paradise. (TR. P 440)
On the contrary, a husband can divorce his wife at will.
11. Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)
12. If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband, she becomes the
target of the curses of angles. Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband’s
bed. (Bokhari P 93)
13. The women who are ungrateful to their men, are the denizens of hell; it is an act
of ingratitude for a woman to say: “I have never seen any good from you.” (Bokhari P
96)
14. A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of her own body. Even her
milk belongs to her husband. (Bokhari P 27)
She is not allowed to practise birth control either.
I must emphasise that the above narrative represents the cultural conditions that prevailed in Arabia
during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The success of his purpose depended on following and
reinforcing them. And so he did through the perpetuation of the existing institutions such as:
1. Purdah,
2. Man’s right to divorce at will; and
3. Polygamy.
An analytical look at these institutions reveals the reality of Islamic rights which women are
supposed to have:
1a. Purdah or masking a woman’s face and other parts of her body, is an old pernicious custom of the
Middle East; it prevailed in ancient Babylonia; no woman could go out unless duly masked, and
chaperoned by a eunuch or a male member of the family. Even apartments in the household were
separated to practise segregation. Conditions in Assyria were no better. The restrictions that applied
to the Babylonian women equally governed the lives of the Assyrian women who had to remain
indoors where darkness prevailed and breeze could not get in through the curtained windows. Iran,
once a great imperial power, was every bit as strict in practising this custom. Possibly, Purdah
originated in Persia, and here imperial influence caused its spread in the other middle Eastern lands.
No upper-class woman in Persia was allowed to go out except in a draped litter, attended by
eunuchs. This is what made woman a captive of the eastern man to acknowledge his superiority. As
the Bible came to the West, it brought male chauvinism with it.
The Prophet Muhammad reintroduced this custom as a part of the Islamic tenets:
” … And say to the believing women that they cast down their eyes … and disclose not their
adornment … and let them wear their veils over their bosom, and not disclose their
embelishments except to their husbands ….. not let them stamp their feet, so that their
concealed ornarment may be known …..” (Light: 30)
“And when you ask his (Prophet’s) wives for anything, ask them from behind a
curtain; this is cleaner for your hearts and theirs ….” (The Confederates 50)
This verse pertains to the believers and commdnds them not to ask Prophet’s wives
for any object face to face but from behind a curtain.
“O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women, that they keep
their veils tight to them…”
(The Confederates 55)
With the passage of time these laws of veiling (purdah) became more severe. Moslems of the Indian
subcontinent provide a good example of the evil influence of purdah. It cut off women from the
outside world to make them ignorant of the practicalities of life. Segregation imposed by this custom
had the same effect on the lives or women as blinkers exert on a horse which gallops at the behest of
the rider without knowing its destination. Women knew only what their fathers, husbands or sons
wanted them to know. As the interests of the male members lay in securing maximum fidelity from
women, all the male gossip was aimed at inventing stories of female obedience. The Moslem
community usually drummed up the sanctity of an apocryphal Hadith (saying of the Prophet) which
stated that at noon when one hair of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, became bare, the sun hid itself
hurriedly to provide her with the Purdah (mask) of darkness. Women brought up on a diet of such
superstitious submission hardly needed any violence from man to shut themselves in their homes
which were nothing but private jails. Domination of their religious beliefs made them enjoy the
sorrows of self-incarceration. Men, on the other hand, being free from the watchful eyes of their
women, indulged in sexual gratification as they desired. Masculine attitudes became more
chauvinistic. If any woman ever complained about his sexual behaviour outside the house, she
qualified for black eyes, a bleeding nose and the threat af divorce. Yet it is woman who was blamed
for the beating: it was her fault because she was not obedient enough to put up with whatever he did!
Had she kept her mouth shut, he would not have been provoked. What a logic!
In the countryside, women had some freedom of movement. They did not wear masks because they
had to tend to the agricultural needs, in addition to the domestic toils. They were just simple-looking
slaves devoid of feminine consciousness, engendered by the feeling of beauty, delicacy and selfadornment. It was the educated urban lady who could protest against women’s servitude, but she had
been puzzled, muzzled and guzzled by the fear of Hell that was to roast every disobedient woman.
And the ladies who did not strictly believe in the existence of Hell, never doubted the effect of the
powerful punches that their fathers, husbands and brothers could shower on them, exceeding the
profusion of any hailstorm.
Moslem woman’s captivity through purdah, deprived her of the economic independence which is the
mainstay of western women’s freedom. She became a maternal machine charged with the duty of
producing chauvinistic boys and submissive girls – all to be brought up in a totally unnatural setting
of religious bigotry praising Allah for the promise of Heaven to forget all about Hell, which they
dwelt in. Even the Hindu women who had never heard of purdah were affected by this abomination.
In the beginning, they thought it fit to veil themselves for evading the lustful eyes of their Moslem
political masters, but later on, it was perpetuated by their husbands to enjoy the benefits of male
chauvinism.
2a. Man’s right to divorce at will, was yet another cause for the misery of Moslem women. I do not
think that the Prophet could have abolished this male prerogative which had prevailed in the Middle
East since time immemorial. Going as far back as to the reign of Hammurabi (1792 B.C. – 1750
B.C.), the ruler of Babylonia, known for his skill of law-making, we find that the Semitic way of life
was based on the superiority of man which automatically spelt contempt for women’s low status. For
example:
a. If people suspected a womall of infidelity and raised fingers at her, it mattered not that she
was innocent. To satisfy the honour of her husband she was expected to throw herself into
the river.
b. The code of Hammurabi prescribed death by drowning for an adulterous wife and
her lover. But her husband could secure her pardon by making her run in the street
entirely naked.
c. Divorce was man’s prerogative. All that a husband had to do was to restore his
wife’s dowry, if any, and utter the magic words: “Thou art not my wife.” But a wife
could not dream of such conduct. If she said: “Thou art not my husband,” the full
might of the law descended on her and she had to be drowned in the river!
Islam retained the old Semitic tradition of allowing man to divorce his wife without giving a reason
for it. If he repeats repudiation three times at once, that is, “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce
thee,” then the marriage is finally dissolved, but if repudiation is uttered only once, the husband can
revoke it within four months to restore his marriage, if he so desires.
However, one must remember that the Prophet declared emphatically: “Of all the lawful things,
divorce is the least liked by God.” Again, the Koran laid a moral duty on the believers that divorce
was not for fun, to realise lusty dreams or political ambitions:
“… Do not expel them from their houses, not let them go forth except when they commit a
flagrant indecency.” (Divorce: 1)
Islam also provides a safeguard for the crumbling marriage: “And if you fear a breach
between the two, bring forth an arbiter from his people and from her people an
arbiter, if they want to set things right.” (Women: 35)
Islam gave women certain rights which marked a definite improvement on the Jewish, Christian and
Hellenistic attitudes towards the fair-sex, yet these rights were far inferior to those of man:
“Women have such honourable rights and obligations, but their men have a degree above
them.” (The Cow: 225)
” A degree above them” (Qawam) has been a source of debate among the Moslem
jurists for centuries. To be brief, the male is held superior to the female: he can
divorce her at will; he can have four wives at the same time; he is twice as reliable in
a court of law as a woman and he receives twice as much by way of inheritance as a
woman.
Man’s absolute discretion to divorce woman kept her in a lasting tremor like the molecular dance. It
was an act of making man a despot. It is well known that power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. This is what humbled, tumbled and jumbled women’s rights though they were
supposed to be real; the inability to wield a sword renders it useless even if it were made of the finest
steel.
Those who know the world of Islam, are aware of the fact that absolute repudiation (thrice) is always
done when a husband’s temper reaches the level of insanity. Instead of allowing the husband to
revoke such a repudiation, Islam made reconciliation impossible by laying down a retributive law:
“If he divorces her finally, she shall not be lawful to him after that, unless she marries
another husband. If he (the second husband) divorces her, then it is no fault in them to return
to each other, if they suppose they will maintain God’s bounds.” (The Cow: 230)
It means if a husband divorces his wife, he cannot marry her unless she weds another man first. Even
then it is permissible only if the other man divorces her of his own free will. It is no good saying that
the purpose of this restriction is to make man think twice before he divorces her finally. The despotic
powers of a Moslem husband are the fountain of this evil. Had he not been equipped with this
authority, he would not have been able to divorce at will.
3a. Now, I may say a few words about the Islamic institution of polygamy:
In practice, the rights that Islam gave women proved very unreal and untenable. Purdah cut off
woman from social life and turned her home into a prison. Her prestige, if any, was preyed upon by
polygamy which the Prophet imported into his religious system. There is no doubt that women all
over the world have been subjected to polygamy in the name of God, but this is one Divine
Command they have loathed, and obeyed most reluctantly. Islam, in many ways, is a carbon copy of
Judaism, but Muhammad executed it sagaciously. This is the reason that the Arabs succeeded in
building a magnificent empire but the Jews, despite being a great people, ended up as the target of
international hatred, havoc and humiliation, quite contrary to Yahwe’s promises of pomp, prestige
and paramountcy.
Polygamy, an old Jewish institution, was perfected by Solomon, through demonstration of his sexual
prowess to one thousand female beauties excluding the Queen of Sheba. It was a luxury of the rich
and was not available to the poor Jews who dreamt of it but could not afford it. Matters were made
worse by Yahwe, the Jewish God, who is more stern and less supple and whose retribution far
exceeds his propensity of remission. If a Jew wanted something he had to toil for it or hoodwink the
gentile at his own peril, but Allah, the Moslem God, on the contrary, promised every faithful a seat
in paradise fulgent with female beauty, where he would be given no fewer than seventy-two houris
(ravishing young maidens) just for waging holy wars to murder the infidels who refused to
acknowledge the spiritual hegemony of the Prophet. To a virile man, especially during his prime,
desire for sexual fulfilment ranks as faith. Therefore, access to easy sex counts as the greatest bait.
To gratify man, Islam created a considerable disparity between the rights of the opposite sexes:
1. Men are superior to women. (The Cow: 225)
2. “Your women are a tillage for you, so come unto your tillage as you wish.” (The
Cow: 220)
Having raised the prestige of man way above women’s station by declaring her man’s tillage whose
only purpose is to act as a maternal machine and meet his carnal demands, Islam authorises him to
administer her a dose of violence whenever she refuses him the pleasure of dalliance:
” Chastise, banish them to their couches and beat them (women); if they then obey you, look
not for any way against them.” (Women: 35)
This is how Islam gradually prepares woman for the eventual surrender, i.e. voluntary acceptance of
polygamy, to escape the threat of roasting Hell by playing up to man’s sexual exorbitance:
“Marry such women, as seem to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be
equitable, then only one..” (Women: 1)
Here the word “Equitable” is understood to mean that the husband must show equal love and care for
all his wives.
This is against the psychological truth because some people are more loveable than others. The
woman who is more vivacious shall be loved more than the vindictive woman. Thus, the law is
basically defective.
In this connection, one should bear in mind that even a superman is not free from the influence of his
native culture, which his mother imparts him right from the cradle and he grows up as a member of a
particular society. Even if he loathes most of its traditions and develops an ardent desire to reform
them, yet he unconsciously remains under the sway of its several customs which govern his life one
way or another. Without this tendency he is bound to feel a void in his personality.
The Prophet was a reformer but he was born and bred in an essentially partriarchal society where
man was held superior to woman and thus acted as the dominant force. It is not surprising that the
Quranic laws of male superiority are fully supported by the Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, which
carry religious and legal authority in the world of Islam. This fact proves one thing beyond a shadow
of doubt, that is, though he wanted to improve the lot of women, he did not think that it needed
raising their status to that of man’s. Not only the excessive privileges of a Moslem man prove it but
the following sayings of the Prophet also illustrate his views on the subject:
1. “The world and all things in it are valuable, but the most valuable thing in the world is a
virtuous woman.”
A virtuous woman represents the apex of humanity. However, the virtue of a Moslem
woman is directly proportionate to the pleasure she yields to her husband. After all,
her status, according to the Quran is that of “man’s tillage.” This is the reason that a
woman cannot enter paradise unless she has been a source of delight to her husband.
2. “Every woman who dieth, and her husband is pleased wrth her, shall enter into
paradise.”
Woman is there to serve man. This is the criterion of her righteousness. It is for this
reason that Islam entitles man to chastise his wives:
3. “Admonish your wives with kindness; for women were created out of a crooked rib
of Adam, therefore, if ye wish to straighten it, ye will break it; and if ye leave it alone,
it will be always crooked.”
It shows the basic doctrine of Islam about womanhood, that is, she is basically crooked, and man has
the right to keep her under his constant vigil; she must never be left alone. In fact, another hadith
expresses woman’s position bluntly:
4. “I have not left any calamity more hurtful to man than woman.”
In Islamic culture, woman is nothing but an object of pleasure. The purpose of purdah or hajaab
(mask) is to restrict woman’s freedom, for keeping her every movement under close guard. It is a
shrewd attempt to cut her off from the rest of the world and persuade her to accept imprisonment
within the four walls of her home in the name of piety. Obviously, a woman who ignores her human
rights to be free, also surrenders her entitlement to monogamy, that is, one man, one wife.
Of course, Moslem women have accepted polygamy but that is under duress, or more properly under
spiritual blackmail. They have been told that this is the command of Allah and disobedient women
will roast in hell. In the case of the Moslem woman, the concept of paradise looms far more
important because this is the place which is chiefly meant for man’s pleasure. Men who believe in
the prophethood of Muhammad, sooner or later will be housed in this land of the blessed where they
will be endowed with a “healthy appetite” and given seventy-two ever-young, most beautiful virgins
with roving wide eyes and large heaving breasts. But what will happen to women? The Quran is
mainly silent about this issue except at two occasions:
a. “He may admit the believers, men and women alike, into gardens …” (Victory: 5)
b. “Enter paradise, you and your wives, walking with joy!” (Ornaments: 70)
It is quite obvious from these verses that paradise is not a place of delight for a woman. If anything,
it is another name for hell in relation to her because she will have to share her husband with no fewer
than seventy-two houris (the paradisiac women) who are bound to be much prettier than her. In such
a situation, a Moslem wife will end up as a menial servant in paradise. In fact, her position will be
far worse than a slave because as a general rule, all women find polygamy singeing, suffocating and
shattering. A woman’s basic requirement is man’s love but her chances of getting it in a crowd of
seventy-two female rivals are quite slim, if not non-existent. And even when it is likely, the
machinations of the co-wives are sure to destabilise the equanimity of her mind, the true source of
happiness. And what about the houris themselves? Seventy-two of them being tied to one man!
Woman cannot be anything but a play thing in Islam.
http://derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/islamandwomanhood1.pdf
ISLAM and WOMANHOOD, (Concluding Part) by Anwar Shaikh
Relationship of the opposite sexes has always been one of the greatest human problems, if
the balance is right, life becomes a paradise but if it is wrong, every day looms as hell.
Though the Western culture has not solved this problem, it has certainly introduced reforms
improving the lot of women considerably throughout the world. However, it is customary of the
religionists to claim that everything is wrong except the tenets of their own faith. Islam is one
such claimant in modern times despite the fact that its basic principles of purdah (veiling),
divorce and polygamy, among many other rules, have been spurned by its own adherents under
the influence of the Western culture, yet the Muslim politician and priest assert the divinity and
perfection of the Koranic Law!
Because of their personal interests, these priests and politicians dare not admit the truth that
Islam is not a code of life, but a complete irrelevance in modern times. This fact is fully borne
out by the governments of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey, headed by women. Nobody can
ever claim that the Prophet encouraged female participation in public affairs or he ever
appointed a woman minister. Though I have provided ample evidence to this effect in part 1 of
this article, I may yet add that public life is totally forbidden to women. The Koran commands
them:
“And stay in your houses…” (The Clans: 33)
Polygamy, the male symbol of superiority, which acts as a proof of female inferiority, has always
been detested by woman, as a general rule, because it is the source of unhappiness to her. Even a
man of such a high stature as the Prophet Muhammad himself could not strike a note of harmony
amongst his wives. The mischief mongers may try to make a capital out of this statement but the
truth is that it does not slight the Prophet but states an unsolvable psychological problem, beyond the
capacity of any man, prophet, messiah or guru. I may therefore illustrate it with reference to the
Prophet’s matrimonial life:
The Prophet had nine wives, and one is inclined to think that all the wives should have been
reconciled with one another in the presence of such a charismatic man as Muhammad whose law of
polygamy clearly states that one must have only one wife if one cannot be equitable with all the
wives. I have no doubt that the Prophet treated them all equally in social and economic matters, yet
he must have found it difficult to be psychologically equitable towards all of them. For my part, I
find no fault with him because some people are not only more lovable than others but also exert a
greater influence on a particular person owing to his own attitude of the mind, irrespective of their
personal qualities.
Beauty of Aisha, the Prophet’s youngest wite was matched by her vivacity of manners, vigour of
obedience and virtue of pleasantness. As the charms of spring allure the heart of a poet, hilarity of
music captivates the mind of an eastern mystic and the pink complexion of the setting sun arrests the
imagination of a painter, the physical beauty of a woman elevated by the piety of her character
arouses a sense of devotion in the hearts of cultured men. Such was the person of Aisha. The
Prophet’s enemies had tried to hurt him by stigmatising her but the purity of her character defied all
sinful imputaticns as the mighty cliffs beat back surging waves of the ocean. Of course, the Prophet
respected all his wives equally, Aisha commanded more than equal share of his love. The extent of
his feelings towards her can be gauged by the following facts as recorded in Chapter MV of Sahih
Muslim, Volume IV:
The prophet said about Aisha:
“I saw you in a dream for three nights when an angel brought you to me in a silk cloth and he said:
Here is your wife, and when I removed (the cloth) from your face, lo, it was yourself, so I said: If
this is from Allah, let Him carry it out.
The Prophet obviously thought of Aisha as a gift from Allah. And, so he treated her until the end of
his life. Aisha reported that “at the time of breathing his last, he was reclining against her chest and
she was leaning over him and listening to him as he was saying: Oh Allah, grant me pardon, show
mercy to me, enjoin me to companions.”
The above hadiths need no comments to portray the special relationship between the Prophet and
Aisha, which aroused a good deal of jealousy among his wives leading to matrimonial disharmony.
The following hadith from Sahih Muslim offers a glimpse of the Prophet’s family life:
Aisha said: “The Wives of the Prophet sent Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter (as a mediator) to him.
She asked permission to enter as he had been lying with me in my mantle. He gave her permission
and she said: Allah’s Messenger, truly your wives have sent me to you for asking you to maintain
equity regarding the daughter of Abu Quhafa (one of the Prophet’s consorts) … The Prophet said: Of
course, I do. Thereupon, the Prophet said: I love this one (Aisha) … Fatima, then left to report the
matter to the other wives. Thereupon they said to her: We don’t think that you have been helpful to
us. You should once again see the Prophet and tell him that his wives seek equity. By Allah, Fatima
replied, I will never talk to him about this matter again.”
Aisha further reported: “The wives of the Prophet then sent Zainab b. Jahsh (another) wife of the
Prophet, who ranked nearly equal with me in the eyes of the Prophet. I have never seen a woman
more advanced in religious piety than Zainab, more God-fearing, more truthful, more conscious of
blood-ties, more generous and having greater sense of self- sacrifice in practical life, and of more
charitable disposition, and thus more close to God, the magnificent, than her However, she suddenly
lost her temper but soon calmed down. The Prophet had permitted her to enter when I (Aisha) was
along with him in my mantle, in exactly the same state when Fatima had entered. She said: Allah’s
Messenger, your wives have sent me to ask for equity regarding the daughter of Abu Quhafa. Then
turning to me she became harsh and I looked into the Prophet’s eyes to guess if he wanted me to hit
back. When I realised that he approved of it; I retorted and exchanged hot words with her until she
observed silence. Thereupon the Prophet smiled and said: She (Aisha) is the daughter of Abu Bakr.”
This episode tells us how love-starved the prophet’s wives were. I do not mean it in any carnal sense
but refer to the psychological sense of this word. Yet this hadith speaks about the bickering only and
not the explosive situation that polygamy had caused in the Prophet’s household. The Koran provides
a better explanation of this fact:
“If you (Prophet’s wives) are Godfearing, be not vile in your speech …. but speak honourable words.”
(The Confederates: 30)
As we know, vile speech means abusive language. All the Prophet’s wives were known to be good
and righteous women. The frustration of polygamy drove them to such an impolite conduct that
Allah himself had to intervene for reminding them how a Godfearing wife should behave. Yet it did
not work and the Almighty had to send another revelation: “It is possible that, if he divorces you, his
Lord will give him in exchange wives better than you, women who have surrendered, believing,
obedient, penitent, devout … who have been married and virgin too.” (The Forbidding: 5)
It is not clear from these verses whether it is the Prophet’s wives who demand annulment or it was he
who threatened them with divorce unless they yielded to his commands and restored the family
peace. They would not be silenced because they knew their Quranic right of equity in a polygamous
household. So they pressed on with it until Allah gave his Prophet a special dispensation from the
Islamic Law of Equity: Allah sent the following verses to resolve the situation.
“You (the Prophet) can suspend any of your wives as you will and receive anyone of them as you
will; and whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin for you..” (The
Confederates: 50)
These verses need hardly any comment from me except that the Koran repeatedly declares that the
Prophet is the model of Behaviour for all believers. Giving him exemption on such a vital point
sounds the death knell of women’s rights that Islam is supposed to have bestowed upon them.
Any code which claims to be of divine origin becomes outmoded and irrelevant to human needs
because we live in a perpetually changing world. It is a matter of common observation that the laws
enacted by the legislative organ of a country became obsolete after a few decades then how come
that the so called Divine Law stays relevant throughout centuries and even millenia. The Jewish Law
is over three thousand years old; if God cares so much that he sent laws to guide mankind all that
long ago, why does he not send laws now? Has he gone to sleep, or does he no longer care about
humanity? If His laws are really necessary, they must come all the time to suit the ever-changing
social conditions of mankind whereas every prophet and messiah claims that he is the last messenger
of God and his code is the final one. Obviously, these prophets and messiahs are human beings who
possess an ardent desire to be treated as the Divine Agents, and worshipped like God by persuading
people through a mechanism of heaven and hell to treat their self- made code as the Law of God. Is
it not amazing that man is self-sufficient in all walks of life yet he is told by these holymen that he
needs laws made by God? Man is quite capable of making laws for himself. In fact, he is the only
person who is entitled to make laws for himself because it is his life which is being bombarded by
problems, it is he who suffers pains and it is he who seeks pleasures. If God were so interested in the
welfare and happiness of mankind, he would have designed this world differently. These Divine
Codes are nothing but a conspiracy against humanily by those who wanted to be adored and obeyed
like God. It is a lucrative business for the priestly classes and an effective tool of political power in
those countries where people have been sufficiently brainwashed in the name of religion.
Why are people brainwashed by religion? Because it offers them hope though it is no more real than
a mirage which makes the thirsty wayfarer believe that what he sees in the scorching desert is water,
and not the deception of his own eyes.
As they say, a drowning man clutches at a straw, people do not stop to think about the triviality of
faith owing to its hope value, and take the travesty for the truth. It is done by exaggerating the
personality of the Prophet or Messiah, who will avenge all injustices of the oppressed and find them
places in paradise where they will live happily thereafter. Thus the Prophet or Messiah becomes the
fulcrum of their personality and they get conditioned to his name. Whenever his name is mentioned
by someone wishing to achieve a purpose, his followers lose control of their rational faculties and
behave at the mob level. Thus they become credulous and excitable and can be easily led like sheep.
One fact should be noted carefully that the more depressed a society owing to hunger, disease and
injustice, the more its members are prone to act irrationally and violently in the name of their
Prophet or Messiah who is considered as their last-hope and the saviour. Thus the increased social
brutality sharpens their sense of securing justice and they will do anything at all to please the
Prophet or Messiah to gain his favour.
Treating the Prophet’s or Messiah’s word as the laws is considered the sign of reverence and
submission, without ever caring whether such a law is relevant or not. In fact, it is considered a
panacea even though it may prove social poison in practice. Being a part of faith, it becomes
immune to reason. Take for instance the Moslem women of Pakistan who believed that their
liberation lay in the introduction of the Islamic law. Heaven knows where they got this idea from.
Purdah, polygamy, man’s unilateral power of divorce, woman’s entry into paradise subject to her
husband’s pleasure, her gross inequality as a court-witness, as well as in matters of inheritance, are
the acknowledged laws of Islam in relation to woman. The “Moslem” countries which have
abolished such laws are, in fact, ashamed of Islam because they have legislated against the declared
principles of the Koran and Sunna i.e. the precedents set by the Prophet himself.
The truth is that the so-called Divine Codes have brought nothing but chagrin to mankind. Take the
Islamic law of rape (Zana-Bil-Jabr) as practised in Pakistan. To prove rape, the woman’s evidence is
discarded and she has to produce four eye-witnesses. This is a rare possibility. Whenever a woman
has reported rape to the police and the case is heard in court, the defendant denies the charge and
alleges her consent to the act. As woman is held the mischievous “species” for being the daughter of
Eve, it is the plaintiff who faces the wrath of the Islamic law, and not the defendant. As a result,
there are six thousand women rotting in Pakistani jails for suffering the loss of their honour!
However, I must add that “Divine Code” is not an Arabian invention but of India, where Rg. Veda,
the Hindu Scripture was first observed directly by the rishis. Though the principle of having more
than one wife at the same time also arose in India, the Semitic institution of polygamy is the fountain
of harem-building. Islam allows four wives at the same time and an unlimited number of concubines.
Emperor Jehangir of India had one wife (Nur Jehan) and 6000 concubines. Some Moslem scholars
argue that the Koran forbade concubinage. This postulate is false because the Prophet left eight
widows and at least one Christian concubine, though some put the number at two.
What is a concubine? According to Chambers’ English dictionary, it means: “one (especially a
woman) who cohabits without being married.” As a student of history, I find it hard to accept this
definition. If it were true, all modern female cohabitees would qualify as concubines. Again,
cohabitation is based on free will and is usually believed to be a premarital trial-association for
choosing a marriage partner, whereas history tells us that concubinage:
a. was not based on free will,
b. it could not be dissolved by the woman, and
c. marriage was not the ultimate end of concubinage, though very occasionally, men did
marry their concubines.)
Let me quote an episode from the Turkish history to explain the reality of concubinage:
Suleiman, the Turkish sultan possessed not only the greatest empire of his time but also a character
unmatched by any ruler before or after him. His title: “The Magnificent” was not forced by himself
or the flatterers af his court but by his worst adversaries, the great Christian Princes and Kings of
Europe. Yet he enjoyed a seraglio of three hundred most beautiful young women. What a Westerner
may call a “Grand brothel,” perhaps through jealousy, a Moslem thinks of it as the “blessing of
Allah” for being a reflection of paradise on earth. Of course, Turks were sincere and devout
Moslems, but Islam provided the Turkish rulers with a special incentive for devoting themselves to
Allah who neither counted concubinage as the worst form of carnal gratification nor dubbed it with
such shabby descriptions as adultery or fornication. Instead he guaratneed preservation of the
Turkish concept of honour associated with womankind. How?
In a battle against Tamburlaine the Conqueror, Bajazet I, the Turkish sultan, though a soldier of
great renown was defeated, and his wife was captured and dishonoured by the victor. The rape of
their Queen to the Turks was an event of extremely shocking magnitude imbued with disgrace,
dishonour and degradation. The proud Ottoman Sultans, used to deflowering other people’s virgins
with a sense of greatness and gratification, could not bear to think of another episode of such gross
indignity, and made it a rule of their conduct not to marry. The underlying philosophy though
simple, was stunning: it clearly showed that the rape of one’s wife was a dishonourable event but the
rape or one concubine carried no such shame. After all what else is a concubine for?
She is simply for carnal pleasures. Thc three hundred concubines of Suleiman the Magnificent,
nearly all Chlistian were either bought on the open market or accrued to him as a prize of victorious
expeditions against the infidels. The great Sultan did not live with his harem. He visited it about two
nights a week. When monotony of state affairs alerted its strangulating effect, he sought to refresh
himselt with the tenderness of these beauties in the same way as hunger goads a lion to look for prey.
The Sultan’s visit was a great event for these delicate creatures constantly watched by an array of
eunuchs and Chamberlains in case they did something to spoil their purity which might upset the
fastidious taste of the royal visitor. To enhance the dignity of the occasion, the wise and magnificent
Sultan always carried a large silken handkerchief. His concubines stood in two rows in anticipation
of being selected to adorn the royal bed at least for one night. As he moved at a very slow pace, the
girls could see a radiant smile on his face, made great and graceful by his lofty manner, the envy of
gods. They greeted him gleefully and he answered them with a warmth springing from a heart filled
with kindness, courtesy and consideration. To attract the Monarch’s eyes for having him as a one-
night groom, every girl wanted to look a bride of blazing beauty, boiling with boisterous passion and
impatient to unleash all her sexy arrows coated with the lethal charms of natural elegance, magnified
by the art of make-up, sartorial splendour and bewitching enticement. The damsel who hit his heart
the hardest arrested his march; he would stop to look into her eyes tenderly and place his
handkerchief on her shoulder. This was the signal that she had been chosen as the one-night bride.
The concubines who were not lucky enough to win the honour of the handkerchief until attaining the
age of twenty-five, were given in marriage to men of high station, who appreciated the royal bounty.
According to Islam, a bastard child solely belongs to his mother because paternal relationship of the
father outside marriage is not recognised by the Islamic law. But, uncannily, when a concubine, who
is not married to her master, bears him a child, it ranks as a legitimate son or daughter; the mother of
Al-Mansur, “the victorious, ” the famous Arab Caliph, was a Berber slave and out of the thirty-seven
Abbasid Caliphs, all except three, were borne by the concubines as legitimate sons of their fathers,
having all the rights of inheritance and succession!
Strange as this situation may seem, it is based on a shrewd fusion of sex and politics, requiring
woman to carry the burden of male chauvinism with total passivity and pretended pleasure.
Understanding of this point needs some knowledge of the Arab culture and history: women had
always been looked down upon by the Arab men to such an extent that it was considered a shame to
be a father-in-law. Therefore, baby daughters were usually killed leading to an acute shortage of
women. The Prophet Muhammad forbade killing of children (daughters) and miraculously used
scarcity of men for the advancement of Islam. He propounded the doctrine of Jehad, that is, holy war
against the infidels for the glory of Allah, and to persuade his followers to indulge in carnage
enthusiastically and happily, he declared the war-booty as God’s blessing; the more glorious,
glittering and gorgeous part of this divine pillage was women, the dearest commodity dreamt by the
sex-starved bedouins, willing to do anything for a female prize. This is the reason that as they
conquered the neighbouring countries, they set up large harems of Christian, Jewish, Egyptian and
Persian concubines. Since offspring of such unions were excessive in numbers, declaring them
illegitimate would have created formidable problems.
The institution of concubinage which provided the Arabs with an incentive to multiply and become a
great imperial nation, also caused their decline through lechery and love of massive harems
brimming with beautiful slave girls administered by eunuchs skilled in the aphrodisiac arts of
titilation and gratification. When the great Saladin entered the Caliphal Palace at Cairo, he found it
occupied by no fewer than 12,000 most delicate female creatures whose dazzling beauty had
devastated the Fatimid Caliph.
Not many people remember the imperial grandeur of Persia which lasted many centuries. Even the
Roman court had adopted the royal Persian manners, which equally suited the Arabs. When
importing the Persian laws regarding purdah, revenue and land administration, the Aabs must also
have looked into the luscious make-up of Khusru Parvez’s harem consisting of 3,000 women, each
excelling the other in softness, serenity and sweetness: one Persian law laid down severe penalties,
including death, for intercourse with an unmarried woman unless she was a conubine or prostitute. It
is this custom which permitled the Moslems to have carnal relationship with concubines.
When we delve deeper into the status of a concubine, woman seems to have only one purpose, that
is, to serve as a target of carnal pleasure for man. Permitting man to have sexual intercourse with his
slave-girl outside wedlock (The Believers: 6) not only shows Islamic contempt for the institution of
marriage but also puts the lowest value on feminine virginity and woman’s human rights. Islam, on
the one hand, places a limit of four wives on man but on the other, allows him unlimited number of
concubines; Akbar the Great of India, had five thousand concubines and his son, Jehangir, possessed
six thousand of them!
It should be noted that the Roman Law imposed death penalty for having sexual intercourse with a
slave-girl whereas Islam allowed it at will. From the study of verses 32 and 33 of the Light, it
appears that originally the Koran did not favour the idea of a Moslem having carnal relationship with
his concubine, and expected him to marry her. As it became necessary to provide the faithful with an
incentive to wage holy wars against the infidels, this taboo was set aside. Thus, woman’s value
dropped to that of a delightful gift; Marya, the Coptic girl, was a present to the Prophet Muhammad
by the Egyptian ruler, and it was she who bore him his only son Ibrahim though the child died as an
infant.
The Islamic view of womanhood is far from being satisfactory. Because of polygamy and
unrestricted concubinage, it encourages jealousy, animosity and ill-will in domestic life. It has been
stated by the Muslim scholars authoritatively that the Prophet was found by Hafsah with Marya on
the assigned day when he should have been with Aisha. Hafsah seemed petrified by the conduct of
the Prophet, who vowed to break with Marya completely if she (Hafsah) did not tell Aisha what she
had seen. It should be noted that Hafsah, Omar’s daughter, was one of the Prophet’s wives. It is well-
known that his wives hardly showed him any respect and used abusive language towards him. Once
Omar tried to intervene for not showing reverence to the Prophet; he was rebuffed and told to mind
his own business. When the existing laws of Islam proved inadequate to tackle the situation, Allah
broke His own code by giving the Prophet dispensation from the matrimonial rule of equity. If the
Prophet himself cannot observe the commands of Allah, how can the ordinary faithful do it?
As I stated in the beginning, matrimonial relationship is the most important social issue of all times,
but Islamic law fails on this account singularly. Yet the Muslims claim it to be the Perfect Divine
Code! In fact, the conjugal laws of Islam, like other religious laws, whether they be Hindu or
Christian, are medieval in spirit. During that period, life was a medium to collet dowry, or bring
families tcgether for social and political reasons. This practice was as rife in India and Europe as in
Arabia. Therefore, it is not impudent to mention that the Prophet had married the daughters of Abu
Bakr and Omar, and had given his own daughters in marriage to Osman and Ali to create closer ties
with them. It is these four men who constitute what is called “Khilafat-E- Rashida,” and Islam could
not have survived without their determined efforts to maintain and spread it.
Marital laws of all religions are antifeminine. Take for example, Hinduism. Lord Krishna had 16,000
wives and 64,000 sons, and not one daughter. It shows the Hindu contempt for womanhood. Islam
holds similar attitude towards femininity: it makes no provision for the marital consent of a virgin;
the Prophet was over fifty when he married Aisha, who was only six years old. It is hardly likely that
a child of her age would have known anything about matrimony.
Again, in the event of divorce, Islam gives custody of young ohildren to the father. In modern times
when social conditions have changed completely, Islamic laws of marriage cannot bring harmony
and happiness to the couples. They are simply outdated.
It is tragic that the Islamic laws are flouted by the Muslims themselves all over the world in the
name of Islam. Most of their laws regarding marriage, government, jurisprudence, economic
management, international relations, are anti- Islamic, but if anyone points to this fact, no matter,
how sincerely, they hold him as the enemy of Islam, even though it is they who make fun of Islam. I
hereby challenge the faithful on this issue and add: “Bring your proof if you are truthful.” (The Cow:
11).
Copyrights