Islam & Applied Ethics

GENDER ISSUES IN ISLAM: RECOVERING THE MEASURE AND RESTORING THE BALANCE MOHAMED EL-TAHIR EL-MESAWI SERENE JONES

COMPILED AND EDITED BY: DR FETHI B JOMAA AHMED ISLAM & APPLIED ETHICS ISLAM GENDER ISSUES IN ISLAM: RECOVERING THE MEASURE AND RESTORING THE BALANCE

GENDER ISSUES IN ISLAM: RECOVERING THE MEASURE AND RESTORING THE BALANCE

Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi Serene Jones

Compiled and Edited by: Dr Fethi B Jomaa Ahmed

ISLAM AND APPLIED ETHICS First English Edition 2019

Hamad Bin Khalifa University Press P O Box 5825 Doha, Qatar

www.hbkupress.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

ISBN: 9789927129858 Printed and bound in Doha, Qatar by Al Jazeera Printing Press Co. L.L.C ISLAM & APPLIED ETHICS

Compiled and Edited by: Dr Fethi B Jomaa Ahmed

1. Civil State with Islamic Characteristics Abdul Majeed Al-Najjar Islam, Civil Society and the State John L. Esposito

2. Ethical Limits on Freedom of Expression with Special Reference to Islam Mohammad Hashim Kamali Freedom and its Limitations: Ensuring Dignity, Avoiding Authoritarianism Ebrahim Rasool

3. Ethics and Finance: An Islamic Perspective in the Light of the Purposes of the Islamic Sharia Mohammad Fadel

4. The Higher Objectives of Islamic Finance Ali M. Al-Qaradaghi and Abdelazeem Abozaid

5. Knowledge and Values Integrated for the Structure of Educational Curricula Khaled Al-Samadi and Khalid Hanafy

6. Islamic Ethics and Psychology Mamoun Mobayed and Saad Eddine El-Othmani

7. The Nature of Man in Secular Humanism and Islam: A Psychocultural Conflict of Worldviews Malik Badri and Colleen Ward

8. Major Contemporary Environmental Issues and Some Religious and Ethical Resources for Addressing Them Syed Nomanul Haq and Ibrahim Ozdemir

9. Sharia-set as a Framework for Addressing Contemporary Environmental Challenges Ali M. Al-Qaradaghi, Franz-Theo Gottwald, and Isabel Schatzschneider

10. What is Islamic Art? And What Makes Art Islamic? Abdullah Al-Judai’ and Jonas Otterbeck 11. Gender Issues in Islam: Recovering the Measure and Restoring the Balance Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi and Serene Jones

12. Issues of Gender Rights and Duties: Islamic Feminism Versus Principles of Islamic Legislation Farida Zomorrod and Ziba Mir Husseini

13. Formulating a Frame of Reference for Terminology Issues Related to Woman and Family Matters Ruqaia Taha Jabir Al-Alwani and Mamoun Mobayed

14. Philosophical Foundations of Gender Issues from a Contemporary Feminist Perspective Terrell Carver and Muthanna Ameen Nader Contents

Preface 9

About the Authors 15

Gender Issues in Islam: Recovering the Measure and Restoring the Balance 17

Commentary on the Research 47

Preface

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

The Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) is pleased to place into the hands of readers this series of booklets, which contain a collection of research papers that have been presented at events organized by the Center. Through these booklets, we are seeking to build a methodological platform that will contribute to CILE’s key objective, namely promoting radical reform. The type of radical reform that we are calling for is based on a fundamental concept: transformational renewal. This concept transcends traditional renovation and a posteriori diligence, which tend to maintain reality and adapt to it, assessing and judging its components through the system of five categories of laws in Islam: Wajeb (required, obligatory), Mandoob (recommended), Mubah (permitted but morally indifferent),Makrooh (discouraged or abomina- ble), and Haram (forbidden or prohibited); in other words, it is rather an evaluative type of jurisprudence. Transforma- tional renovation goes beyond this intellectual space to create a kind of renovation and jurisprudence that addresses facts critically and explores reality intellectually so as to reform it, or even rebuild it if necessary. Moreover, this transformational renovation process puts forward alternative solutions for the shortcomings of the current reality, seeking to establish new means, models, and paradigms at all levels that would achieve

9 ethical objectives. Therefore, radical reform purports to go beyond superficial issues and directly into the crux of objectives and ethics, beyond minor details into theoretical foundations and frames of reference. In order to implement radical reform by means of transformational renovation, religious scholars and scientists should share the responsibility. While religious scholars, in many cases, have been capable of judging reality based on specific facts provided by scientists, the task is different with regard to diligence and transformational renovation. This is because an endeavor such as this requires an advanced and comprehensive understanding of both religion and reality. Being well versed in Islamic Sharia sciences and being formally and partially aware of reality will not alone help bring about transformational reform unless it is accompanied with similar knowledge of our reality; and with today’s scientific advancement this is only possible by involving those specialist scientists and practitioners. The process of building reality on the foundation of proper Islamic ethics and values should be based on a deep and comprehensive understanding that will help analyze the reasons behind malice, which drives people to engage in substandard activity. This understanding may lead to the introduction of alternative solutions and new practices that are more deeply founded on scientific knowledge. Not dismissing the sound efforts and evaluative diligence of religious scholars, neither Islamic Sharia scholars nor scientists alone should monopolize knowledge or assume the sole responsibility for undertaking reforms in society. CILE activities are noteworthy for bringing together both religious scholars and scientists and experts. We do not seek to address the evaluative process, which is limited to understanding reality through judgment and adaptation, drawing on permissions or prohibitions. Rather, CILE activities facilitate an

10 open dialogue between scholars and expert practitioners, who can collectively propose how best to undertake radical reforms and recommend solutions that are at once inspired by Islamic principles and supported by scientific knowledge. Although the combined work of religious scholars and scientists constitutes a fundamental methodological basis for transformational renovation, it should be coupled with many other elements pertaining to the methods, theories, and objectives of science. For instance, traditional Sharia scientific methods do not preclude the desired type of renovation. At the same time, modern science has failed to focus on ethics, as it has not addressed ethics as a fundamental issue. On the contrary, modern science relegates ethics to a secondary position. This raises the issue of the division of sciences into religious and secular sciences, and of their tendency to focus excessively on highly specialized topics without associating them with greater universal themes. Undoubtedly, this undermines the communication between scholars from various disciplines and thwarts their efforts to work together to develop an epistemological approach that combines their knowledge to serve the important purpose of promoting ethics. Therefore, the challenge set before us is not to persuade scholars belonging to various disciplines and back- grounds to work together. Rather, it is to shake them in their scientific “safe havens” and drive them to push through the epistemological paradigms governing their own knowledge in order to set up a new system and outline methods for the goal of achieving renewal. Enhancing its specialized research activities aimed at facil- itating and exploring the communication between religious scholars and scientists and experts, CILE convened a three-day closed-door seminar from May 19-21, 2015 at Oxford Univer-

11 sity in the UK, to consider the contemporary challenges of, and the relationship between, Islamic ethics and gender issues. Outstanding scholars, experts, and intellectuals with theological and professional experience from around the world participated in the seminar, including Dr Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi, Rev. Dr Serene Jones, Dr Farida Zomorrod, Dr Ziba Mir-Hosseini, Dr Ruqaia Taha Jabir Al-Alwani, Dr Mamoun Mobayed, Dr Muthanna Ameen Nader and Dr Terrell Carver, in addition to Dr Tariq Ramadan and Chauki Lazhar. The seminar was moderated by Dr Mawahib Bakr.

CILE requested the participants to address the following questions:

A. Theoretical question:

To what extent do the Qur’an, Sunna and the Higher Objectives of Sharia provide a framework for a systematic understanding of gender issues, particularly origin, equity and relationships?

Sub-questions:

1. Are masculinity and femininity ascribed or acquired or both? If both, what are the ascribed and acquired qualities in each of them? 2. To what extent are the “Islamic feminists”’ approaches non-apologetic, and to what extent do they provide a useful, balanced framework for gender relations? 3. How does the prevailing legal and religious discourse of Muslim scholars and jurists (‘ulama and fuqaha’) that focuses on women’s and men’s roles in society set the rules for equitable and ethical gender relations?

12 B. Applied question:

How do scholars and practitioners address the social and ethical impacts of heterosexuality and homosexuality in contemporary societies?

Sub-questions:

1. What approach can Muslim scholars and practitioners adopt to address cases of homosexuality and heterosexuality, particularly among Western Muslims? 2. Is marriage just a biological and emotional connection for sexual satisfaction, or is it also a social and legal bond that serves noble goals? 3. How do you evaluate sexual education, and does sexual information make sense to young people?

This booklet includes some of the research papers presented in this seminar. It is part of a CILE book series that we hope will contribute to our project of transformational renewal.

CHAUKI LAZHAR, CILE Deputy Director

About the Authors

DR MOHAMED EL-TAHIR EL-MESAWI is a Tunisian scholar who gained his doctorate, in Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Her- itage, from International Islamic University Malaysia in 2003, and is currently a professor in the Department of Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh at International Islamic University Malaysia. Dr El-Me- sawi was Editor of at-Tajdid and managing editor of Islāmiyyat al-Ma‛rifah, both refereed scholarly Arabic journals. He has published numerous scholarly papers on Islamic studies and philosophy and has won awards for translation and academic excellence. He edited the book The Question of Minorities in Islam: Theoretical Perspectives and Case Studies.

REV. DR SERENE JONES is the 16th President of the historic Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York and a past president of the American Academy of Religion. The first woman to head the 182-year-old interdenominational seminary, Dr Jones occupies the Johnston Family Chair for Religion and Democracy and has formed Union’s Institute for Women, Reli- gion and Globalization as well as the Institute for Art, Religion and Social Justice. Dr Jones came to Union after 17 years at Yale University, where she was the Titus Street Professor of Theol- ogy at the Divinity School, and chair of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Dr Jones is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disci- ples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ. She is a leading theologian and the author of several books, including Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety and Trauma and Grace.

Gender Issues in Islam: Recovering the Measure and Restoring the Balance

Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi

17 Introduction

Providing a detailed historical analysis or comprehensive narrative of the rise and development of the “question of woman” in the contemporary Muslim world or specific parts thereof is beyond the concern and scope of the present paper. However, a schematic description of its general sociohistorical and cultural context is not out of order. Such contextualization is required in order to situate our argument in a proper perspective. This paper being a preliminary and tentative work, I have intentionally avoided references to the many works that have helped me tremendously in developing my argument, except for very limited direct citations. At this stage, the writer has deemed it unnecessary to abide by the technicalities of academic research in terms of detailed and extensive references and citations to substantiate the “claims,” “judgments,” or “positions” advanced in the following pages. However, what the author will have to say is informed by extensive, though not exhaustive, reading of, and reflection on, a large body of literature on the “question of woman,” representing varying types of discourse and reflecting different views and positions, by Muslim as well as non-Muslim authors. Thus, the next section of the paper shall attempt to outline the general context in which the subject has been developing for at least the past one hundred years.

18 Furthermore, the present paper is not an empirical study, nor even an historical textual analysis, of gender and women issues in Islam and Muslim societies, past or present. Its primary goal is to set forth a position by suggesting a normative theoretical framework, developed from the normative sources of Islam, which is believed necessary to deal with these issues in a suitably holistic manner. Though the author is, generally speaking, aware of the crucial issues and main arguments that have informed and continue to animate much of the debate on the question of women in Western feminist literature, he does not lay any claim to analyzing or evaluating, partially or wholly, those issues and arguments. Only insofar as they bear directly on the subject within the Muslim context will such issues and arguments be invoked, albeit indirectly. However, there is no denying that in the following presentation it may be possible to read implicitly between the lines some tentative positions in their regard.

I. Gender and Women Issues in Muslim Milieus in Histori- cal Perspective

Since around the middle of the nineteenth century, a general doctrine of freedom and equality of human beings has been developed and consolidated in Europe and North America and then disseminated in the rest of the world. This doctrine is grounded in the philosophy of liberalism, itself deeply rooted in a secularist worldview that took shape thanks to sociocultural, scientific, and philosophical developments taking place over a few centuries. The driving spirit of that doctrine aimed to break the historical shackles of society by first liberating the human mind and personality from the dominance of tradition in general and the authority of religion in particular. In the

19 wake of successive waves of modernity and post-modernity – its sequel and offshoot – that carried that spirit culturally and geographically to unheard-of frontiers, gender issues, with a special focus on women, became central to various political, social, moral and philosophical discourses. Muslim and most Third World societies experienced the reverberations of that “liberating spirit” under the banner of the almost universal phenomenon of Western colonialism, with its multipurpose agenda, of which Europe’s “civilizing mission” of “uncultured and primitive peoples” was not the least untold story. Gender issues in general, and women’s issues in particular, have been the subject of different and often conflicting views, each tending to one extreme or another. The debate is often rather oversimplified, oversentimentalized and exacerbated by solidly closed ideological constructs that do not allow for a wider and dynamic vision of the complexity and multidimensionality of the human reality. The binary making up that reality is often depicted in such a dichotomous manner as to bifurcate it into two opposing poles that seem bound not to meet, or, if they do meet, the result is catastrophic! As one reads into the plethora of literature on the question of gender, especially by feminists and their opponents, one gets the impression that we are in the presence of an unbridgeable chasm or insurmountable mountain setting women and men apart as two irreconcilable warring camps. Nothing could be further from the truth than such a portrayal, whose authors, from both sides, seem to be blind or indifferent to the ordinary facts of mankind’s everyday life, whereby millions of males and females throughout the world strive together in all spheres of life to shoulder the burdens of their earthly existence and play their respective and complementary roles, thus fulfilling their noble mission of promoting goodness and welfare for themselves and all of their fellow humans.

20 This, however, in no way obliterates the fact that misconcep- tions, misperceptions, misrepresentations and malpractices have been and are being committed now and then, intentionally and unintentionally, thus affecting the worth, status, position, consciousness, choices, and will of many a sector in human societies, including all those who might actually be weak or be perceived to be so, as well as all those who might be considered useless or undesirable, such as women, children, slaves, the elderly, and strangers. The adverse effect on women due to such aberrations and injustices has undoubtedly been huge, something no society or civilization can claim to have been spared. From time immemorial, different means have been designed and used to support, maintain and perpetuate those aberrations, from sheer power and brute force to all sorts of refined justifications, be they inspired by self-interest, mythi- cal thought, religious tradition or philosophical doctrine. Of most – if not all – Third World cultures and religious traditions, Islam has been subjected to the most severe, sustained and renewed criticism and attack by travelers, writers, commentators and scholars across different disciplines, from classical Orientalism to the latest strands of cultural and feminist studies, let alone journalistic and media coverage. Regardless of the many and different counts on which Islam has been criticized both as scripture and in its sociocultural and historical manifestations, gender-related issues generally and the position and rights of women particularly have been among the focal themes of that critique. This is not so much because of Islam’s poorer record in those respects compared to other reli- gions and cultures, but mainly and most importantly because of its resilience and unwillingness to succumb to the overwhelming secular vision of the world and its ensuing and embodying modes of thinking and models of life. In identifying this spe-

21 cific feature of Islam that has been problematic and perplexing for many of its non-religious or anti-religious critics, especially with regard to gender, women and family issues, we do not mean to imply that criticism of Islam has been only external, that is, made only by non-Muslims or people outside its abode as faith community, cultural tradition and social order, especially Westerners. In fact secularism and secular thinking have not only made significant inroads into Muslim life and culture that can be explained in terms of merely pragmatic considerations and practical social and political expediency, but have also become the basis and guiding philosophy of state power and ideology in Muslim countries whatever their political orientations. Such a development is a reflection of the intellectual transformation that took place and gave rise to new, well entrenched sociopolitical and cultural elites whose sources of inspiration lie outside the framework of Muslim societies’ traditional cultural sphere and worldview in which Islam was, to say the least, a decisive factor. As documented by many historical studies, this transformation and “migration” to secularism as a vision of the world, and the spread and deep-rootedness of secular ideologies and modes of thinking that gradually shaped public and political life and significantly reframed social affairs, were not, generally speaking, so much the result of internal dynamics and conscious, volitional choices as of external imposition by colonizing powers through both overt and covert means, during both the colonial and post-colonial periods, as those countries remained largely chained to the colonial masters through multiple forms of dependence. It is in the context of that historical relationship between a “strong, progressive, and dominant Occident” and a “weak, decadent, and dominated Orient” that women’s issues were framed in terms of problematic and solution. There is no

22 denying the fact that from its early beginnings what came to be known in the Arab world, for example, as the “women’s liberation movement” (harakat tahrir al-mar’a) was mainly inspired and influenced by the already existing model(s) of women’s struggle for freedom, justice and equality that had taken shape in European countries, especially France and England. However, the real problem does not lie here, as it is only natural in the wake of the universal phenomenon of acculturation among societies and civilizations that individuals as well as groups learn from each other through processes of adoption and adaptation in order to face the exigencies of life. In other words, the advocacy of women’s rights and freedom was to an undeniably great extent part and parcel of the modernizing process that unfolded in the Muslim world; this process took place mostly under the patronage of Western powers, with its points of reference and centers of gravity deeply steeped in the secular liberal worldview and its attendant cosmologies, sub- sequently constantly consolidated and reformulated in tandem with successive waves of philosophical doctrines and sociocultural theories that reflected the Western mind’s continuous process of negation and self-negation. Regardless of whether the pioneering voices advocating women’s rights and defending their cause were female or male, and notwithstanding the fact that important achievements have been made whereby women have become real partners with men in almost all sectors of the public sphere, thus con- tributing their share to the overall well-being and development of Muslim societies, much of the debate and theorization on the question of women in particular and gender issues in general is both misguided and misleading on both sides of the debate (the exponents as well as the opponents of the women’s cause) in many ways that we cannot discuss at length here. It would

23 suffice to say that it is caught in a strained process of mutually negating reactions and counterreactions. Whereas one camp believes that the liberation of woman and the granting and protection of her rights are the path and condition for any real progress of society, the other camp sees all that as a most per- nicious danger that must be warded off with all one’s strength. Consequently, the question of women has been in most cases depicted as if it were simply a matter of the “veiling,” “unveiling,” and “re-veiling” of women, something often unjustifiably linked with the mysterious image of the Oriental harem! Not only are more pertinent and fundamental issues likewise left unattended to, but they are also often trivialized. The heated debate on the veil/scarf in many Western countries over the past two decades at least is only symptomatic of the traditional view the West has held of it throughout the past two centuries, as a sign of women’s oppression, marginalization and even dehumanization and demonization in Islam! Many if not most advocates of the woman’s cause in the Muslim world have fallen prey to this imagery and stereotyping, from the early Muslim feminists in the nineteenth century, such as Nazira Zain al-Din and Qasim Amin, through to the different brands of so-called “Islamic feminism” of Fatima Mernissi, Amina Wadud, Kecia Ali and others, not forgetting such ultrafeminist figures as Nawal El Saadawi. Worse still, under the overwhelming influence of consumer culture and capitalistic commercialization of everything, a good deal of the discussion on gender and women in general and in Islam in particular is trapped in what can be described as “woman as body and sexuality,” thus reducing woman to a mere exhibit, the object and subject of sex, no matter who is involved in the discussion, be they “liberating ultrafeminists” or “conservative and fundamentalist antifeminists.” Many voices

24 of balance and reasonableness are lost in between the extreme positions of the two mutually denying camps. Even that latest trend described as Islamic feminism does not seem able, in its talk on women and men, to transcend the reductionist and polarizing spirit animating the dominant secular ideologies of feminism in its different waves, including postfeminism and its corollaries of “genderism” and “transgenderism.” A discourse that overcomes the divide created and sustained by the Mars-Venus imagery is thus wanting. This reductionist and polarizing tendency, pitting woman and man against each other, seems to have the upper hand in the discourses not only on women’s rights and freedom but also on their nature and personality, and this implicates both feminists and anti-feminists in varying degrees. A common mental attitude, flowing from reductionism and polarization and consisting of sweeping generalization and distorting idealiza- tion, underpins the positions of both parties. The major reason behind this deplorable situation in dealing with the question of gender in general, and women’s issues in particular, is the absence of a holistic and comprehensive approach that deals with the problem in all its dimensions, from the fundamental and foundational level to the secondary and least important issues, not merely as a women’s problem but at the same time as a problem of man and woman alike, and a matter pertaining to the human condition in its totality. This positioning of the problem is grounded in the fundamental premise that the human reality and condition cannot be fully comprehended and justly appreciated without its twofold manifestation embodied in the female/male or woman/man binary being duly taken into consideration. This binary character of the human reality is indeed itself a reflection of the cosmic order of creation that only utterly disturbed or disordered minds would

25 dare to dispute. In what follows, an attempt is made to suggest such an approach that is grounded in the Qur’anic worldview as the author has been able to understand it.

II. Common Origin and Unity of Men and Women: Light from Heaven

As the second part of this paper’s title would like to suggest, mankind at present suffers from much imbalance and loss of measure in almost all aspects of thought and life. The roots of this state of affairs stretch far back over many decades, if not centuries. It is the logical and natural outcome of what I have described elsewhere as a “rebirth of sophistry and an unabated rise of skepticism and nihilism.”1 The dichotomous and polarizing situation briefly described above regarding the treatment of gender and women’s issues is but an expression of this new sophistry and its concomitant nihilistic solipsism. Restoring the balance and “recovering the measure”2 in thought and vision are the necessary and sine qua non condition for overcoming that situation and redressing or at least assuaging its damaging effects and ramifications, which have been confusingly shaping views and attitudes and determining behaviors and acts for quite a long time now, thus plunging mankind into what may ultimately lead to self-destruction, a fate harbingered by many catastrophic happenings in our world in both the natural and social realms. This total confusion cannot be cleared up unless we look at the matter from a vantage point transcending human egoistic and earthbound considerations and reductionist ideologies and philosophical doctrines. Such a vantage point can only be obtained through recourse to a sublime source from which human beings are equidistant, in the sense that they are the same according to its criteria and valuation regardless of

26 their gender, race, social status, economic wealth, or political power. Being Allah’s last revelation to mankind, the Qur’an constitutes, for Muslims at least, such a source. In its narrative of pre-worldly or primordial human existence, before even the creation of the first human person, or what we may describe as the metaphysical stage of human existence, the Qur’an depicts the high worth and eminent place in Allah’s kingdom of the new being in relation to other creatures, whether heavenly or terrestrial. The moral and theological significance of this portrayal for the edifying function of the Qur’an and the reformative mission of the Prophet can be seen at two different levels: the chronological sequence of the Qur’anic revelations and their final arrangement (both as verses and as suras) in the mushaf.3 Let us start with the chronological level. The first instance of the narrative occurs in Surat Saad (verses 71-83), while the last one occurs in Surat al-Baqara (verses 30-39). Likewise, the narrative opens in the first instance with Allah informing the angels that He is “about to create a human being out of clay (basharan min teen)” before whom they shall “fall down in pros- tration” once Allah has “formed him fully and breathed into him of His spirit.” Thereupon, we are informed, all the angels submitted themselves to the divine command and prostrated themselves before the new creature, except Iblis, or Satan, who rebelled against that order on the grounds that he was better than the new being by virtue of having been created “out of fire.” In the last instance, an important dimension is added to the narrative, bringing about some aspects of the rationale or wisdom behind the divine command to the angels to prostrate themselves before the new creature: it consists of Allah’s plan to establish the new creature on earth as its inheritor (khalifa). A query on the part of the angels, mixed perhaps with astonish-

27 ment as to the divine plan to place on earth someone who “will spread corruption thereon and shed blood” (as opposed to the angels, who constantly extol and glorify Allah), is answered by Allah through a practical scene showing one of the qualities of this inheritor of the earth: having been taught “all the names of all things.” Again, the same response ensues from the angels and its opposite from Iblis. In the opening of this chronological sequence (Saad, 38:71- 83), the Qur’anic genesis starts by asserting the essential constitution of the new species, whose nature combines both earthly (base, low) and heavenly (sublime, divine) elements, or bestial and angelic components, and ends by bringing to the fore some of the main credentials entitling it to the place and position assigned to it in contradistinction to all other creatures in the cosmos, including the angels themselves. Thus, we are presented with the fundamental equation of the human species as consisting of a materiality and a spirituality that are so inextricably interconnected that we cannot conceive of its essential nature and uniqueness without reckoning with both of them at the same time. In other words, form and stature notwithstanding, being created out of earthly material does not make the human being any different from other creatures that share with it the same material constituents but are physically stronger and may even be endowed with greater physical capacities and privileges. It is, then, the endowment with consciousness and the power of cognition, allegorically expressed by the divine spirit being breathed into the human being, that makes the real difference and marks it out as an essentially distinct creature. This is further elucidated and emphasized in the closing of that sequence (al-Baqara, 2:30-39) by Adam, the epitome of mankind, being equipped with the faculty of conceptual thinking and the ability to discern between truth and false-

28 hood, which is denoted by the fact that “knowledge of all the names” has been imparted unto him. Hence, the human being’s supremacy on earth and prominence among other creatures are rightfully justified by these distinctive qualities. Viewing the matter according to the traditional arrangement of the Qur’anic revelations harkening back to the Prophet himself, we find that the two “quantifiers” of the narrative have been reversed: the last instance in the chronological order of revelation is brought to the forefront immediately after the opening chapter (al-Fatiha) of the mushaf, while the first instance in that same order is postponed to the last part of the fourfold division of the mushaf, following the order in which each of the suras occurs, that is, al-Baqara as No. 2 and Saad as No. 38 (thus keeping its chronological order). Put differently, what occurred in the chronological sequence of the narrative as an opening has become the closing in its scriptural format, whereas what was its closing has become the opening in that format. Between these two limits, from whichever angle we may look at the matter, the narrative unfolds in the other five suras4 in dynamic and dialogical scenes, with each scene adding some new details, shedding new light, or putting a stronger empha- sis on one aspect or another, while maintaining the same core throughout: confirming both the human being’s apparently base material origin and its spiritual supremacy. It is not our purpose here to delve into a detailed analysis of the different elements and aspects brought forth in the account provided in each of those suras, nor is it of much interest for our discussion to dwell upon the connotations of the historical as well as textual contexts of such accounts. What concerns us most in the Qur’anic narrative of human genesis is to see how it has represented human reality in its metaphysical stage. The

29 importance of that representation lies in its far-reaching and profound ethical, theological and philosophical implications for our understanding of the human species and our valuation of its status and place in the realm of creation. As has already been pointed out, the divine command to the angels to humble themselves before the new being bespeaks the latter’s special worth and supremacy as Allah’s chosen creature to fulfill a specific purpose in the universe. What is even more important and of special significance for the subject of this paper is the fact that the Qur’anic narrative of human genesis does not speak of the first human being as just one person or a single individual in that metaphysical scene. Rather, it is a question of a pair or binary who were together given permission to dwell in the Garden and to whom was addressed the first divine order to abstain from committing a certain act (eating from a specific tree).5 This is clearly depicted in three of the six Qur’anic accounts mentioned above, namely al-A‘raf (7:19-23), Taha (20:117-122), and al-Baqara (2:35- 36). We shall confine ourselves here to the account provided by Surat al-A‘raf for two reasons. The first is that, as far as the unfolding of the Qur’anic story of human genesis is concerned, this sura ranks second in both the chronological sequence of revelation and the layout order of the mushaf. The second and more important reason is that it provides the most elaborate description of the first pair of human beings being faced as morally accountable agents. After the mention of Satan’s dis- grace and disownment due to his refusal to obey Allah’s order to prostrate himself to Adam, we read the following: And [as for thee], O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden, and eat, both of you, whatever you may wish; but do not approach this one tree, lest you become evildoers!” (19) Thereupon Satan

30 whispered unto the two with a view to making them conscious of their nakedness, of which [hitherto] they had been unaware; and he said: “Your Sus- tainer has but forbidden you this tree lest you two become [as] angels, or lest you live forever.” (20) And he swore unto them, “Verily, I am of those who wish you well indeed!” (21) and thus he led them on with deluding thoughts. But as soon as the two had tasted [the fruit] of the tree, they became conscious of their nakedness; and they began to cover themselves with pieced-together leaves from the garden. And their Sustainer called unto them: “Did I not forbid that tree unto you and tell you, ‘Verily, Satan is your open foe’?” (22) The two replied: “O our Sus- tainer! We have sinned against ourselves, and unless Thou grant us forgiveness and bestow Thy mercy upon us, we shall most certainly be lost!” (23) The divine permission to enjoy the bounties of the Garden, and the interdiction to approach one specific tree therein, are not, either here or in the other two suras, addressed to one single person but to two partners at the same time: Adam and his pair (zawj). The dramatic turn of events whereby Satan’s seduction of both of them took place and incurred disobedience to that interdiction and the subsequent act of repentance, as well as Allah’s acceptance of that repentance, involves both partners at the same time. Most important, however, is the fact that nowhere in the Qur’an do we encounter the blame for that disobedience being put on one of them rather than the other as being personally accountable for what happened, as is the case with the Bible (Genesis 3:1-16; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Timothy 2:14), according to which Eve is the one who was beguiled by the serpent and “was in transgression.” Rather,

31 according to the Qur’anic narrative, both Adam and his pair were equally responsible and, hence, both of them needed to repent of the disobedient behaviour they had committed in order to be reformed and restored. Interestingly, though, if we approach the Qur’an in an atomistic, disintegrated manner, we could even say that Adam alone was responsible for what had happened, as is stated in Taha, 20:117-120: …and thereupon We said: “O Adam! Verily this is a foe unto thee and thy wife: so let him not drive the two of you out of this garden and render thee unhappy. (117) Behold, it is provided for thee that thou shalt not hunger here or feel naked, (118) and that thou shalt not thirst here or suffer from the heat of the sun.” (119) But Satan whispered unto him, saying: “O Adam! Shall I lead thee to the tree of life eternal; and [thus] to a kingdom that will never decay?” (120) However, this does not seem to be the tendency of the Qur’an. Of course, the foregoing brief presentation of what we described as the Qur’anic narrative of human genesis is not all the Qur’an has to say about the origin, nature and worth of the human species. Its primary importance is that it provides us with the fundamental ontological and metaphysical framework of Islam’s view of human beings, and it is according to that framework that the Qur’an develops its view of human nature and elaborates its understanding of the relationship between its two constituents or facets: man and woman. In al-A‘raf (7:189), the very sura that provides one of the most detailed accounts of human genesis, we are clearly informed that Allah has created all human beings “out of one living entity (nafs wahida), and out of it brought into being its mate (zawjaha).” In another Makkan revelation, we read the

32 following: “He (Allah) has created you [all] out of one living entity, and out of it fashioned its mate.” (al-Zumar, 39:6) The same meaning is solemnly emphasized, by connecting it to Allah-consciousness, at the very opening of one of the early Madinan revelations, whose name itself is of high significance for our discussion. Named al-Nisa’ (Women), and ranking fourth in the arrangement of the mushaf, this sura starts with Allah’s call to mankind to be conscious of their Sustainer and Lord, who has created them “out of one living entity, and out of it created its mate, and of the two spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” (al-Nisa’, 4:1) The term nafs used in these verses is of such high frequency in the Qur’an that it occurs more than 290 times in varying grammatical forms and with many different connotations, depending on the immediate context of its occurrence, such as “living entity,” “vital principle,” “soul,” “spirit,” “mind,” “person,” “self,” “life-essence,” “humankind,” etc. Most of the classical Qur’an commentators, such as al-Tabari, Makki ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Atiyah, al-Zamakhshari, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn al-Zubayr al-Gharnati, inter- preted the term nafs in the above verses and in similar contexts as meaning “human being,” with the assumption that it refers specifically to Adam. This interpretation has been contested, indeed rejected, by an increasing number of modern scholars, such as Abdu, al-Khatib, Ibn Ashur, Darozah, al-Tabatabai, Qutb, Asad, al-Ghazali, Turabi, al-Amuli and others. Apparently building on the view of Abu Muslim al-Isfahani cited by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Ibu Hayyan and others and anonymously mentioned by al-Maturidi, these scholars maintain that the term nafs in such contexts refers to humankind “inasmuch as this term stresses the common origin and brotherhood of the human race.”6 Clearly driving away from the Biblical story of the creation of

33 Adam and Eve,7 whose influence on the first interpretation can be easily detected, this interpretation is more compatible with the general spirit of the Qur’an, as well as many verses whose main import is to highlight the essential unity and primordial common nature of human beings deriving from the unity of their Creator’s will and power. This is further supported by the fact that in pure eloquent Arabic usage the word zawj (meaning a pair, one of a pair, or mate) applies equally to both the male and female of a pair or couple.8 Accordingly, “with reference to human beings, it signifies a woman’s mate (husband) as well as a man’s mate (wife).”9 It has even been argued, perhaps not unjustifiably, that the original living entity (nafs wahida) mentioned in the verses cited above combined masculinity and femininity at the same time; it was thus a kind of “bisexual mother” (umm muzdawi- jat al-jins) from which was separated the male mate, Adam, in such a way that femaleness and femininity would be Eve’s char- acteristic feature. Hence, Adam was created without a father, just as Jesus would later be.10 This interestingly bold view, which might bring some consolation to the many feminists who are concerned or even worried because of the allegedly gender-biased or patriarchal language of the Qur’an, can in fact be appreciated in the following light. The term zawj, signifying the mate that was separated from the original entity (which is itself indicated in the feminine pronoun form) is referred to in the masculine pronoun form in at least one Qur’anic verse. Consider the following verse (al-A‘raf, 7:189): “It is He who has created you [all] out of one living entity (nafs wahida), and out of her brought into being her mate (zawjaha), so that he might incline toward her (li-yaskuna ilayha).”11 In light of the preceding exposition of the Qur’anic narrative of human genesis, its moral and theological significance can

34 now be fully realized and expressed as follows. As its revelation progressed over time, the Qur’an was gradually instilling in the consciousness of its immediate addressees (and through them the whole of humanity) one fundamental truth about themselves and their species: that they are all the outcome and manifestation of Allah’s creative will and power, without which their existence is inconceivable. By stressing their initial creation from earthly elements (teen, turab, hama’ masnoon, salsal) and their subsequent reproduction “out of the essence of clay” and “out of the essence of humble fluid” (sulala min ma’ mahin),12 like most other creatures on earth, it is teaching them a profound moral lesson: to realize their humble origin, curb their arrogance and refrain from boasting about themselves. Whatever their gender, race, color, tribal descent, economic wealth, social status, political authority, etc., human beings (as both individuals and groups) should not entertain the sense of being greater or worthier than others of their kind but always remember their common material origin, which is in itself of a base and low order! This humbling teaching is simultaneously balanced by emphasizing the spiritual elevation and sublimity of consciousness bestowed on them by their Creator, which alone represent the real worth and greatness of their species and from which they degenerate only at their own peril. Hence the Qur’an’s announcement that Allah has created human beings “in the best confirmation” (al- Tin, 95:4), thus endowing them “with all the positive qualities, physical as well as mental, corresponding to the functions” they are meant to fulfill in the world.13 But this positive announcement is immediately followed by the clear warning that they can be reduced “to the lowest of the low” (al-Tin, 95:5) due to their own commissions and omissions, a consequence that ensues from their becoming “grossly overweening” by believing themselves “to be self-sufficient” (al-‘Alaq, 96:6-7) and forgetting or ignor-

35 ing their total indebtedness to their Creator and Sustainer. The Qur’an’s elevation and glorification of humankind then culmi- nates in the resounding proclamation that it has been endowed with the inheritance of the earth as Allah’s vicegerent and trustee on it (al-Baqara, 2:30; al-Ahzab, 33:72; both suras were revealed in Madina) to the exclusion of all other creatures. This edifying and reformative process that went hand in hand with the chronological sequence of revelation is found to be reversed in the scriptural layout and arrangement of the Qur’an. As one encounters the mushaf and reads into it from the beginning, one is soon brought face to face with the solemn cel- ebration of mankind’s nobleness and supremacy, manifested, as just mentioned, in the notions of stewardship and trust, as if to assure the reader that the message of the Qur’an and its call are not meant to debase human beings and alienate them from the world in which they live, as some religious teachings and spiritual doctrines would tend to do. On the contrary, the Qur’an has come to glorify the human species and raise it in every positive sense to a supreme position of mastery on the earth that Allah has already made subservient to it: “And He has made subservient to you, [as a gift] from Himself, all that is in the heavens and on earth: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think!” (al-Jathiya, 45:13); “He it is who has created for you all that is on earth.” (al-Baqara, 2:29) Yet as the reader advances in his/her encounter with the Qur’anic discourse, he/she is reminded at quite regular intervals of human beings’ humble origin, as well as of the reason behind their elevation and nobleness, lest the realization of their supremacy and glorification should arouse in them any feeling of haughti- ness, arrogance or tyranny.

36 III. Man and Woman in the World: Moral Agency and Social Responsibility

The foregoing exposition has been intended to provide what we believe constitutes or at least reflects the metaphysical and ontological foundation of the human condition in Islam, its fundamental view and valuation of human beings. Whatever Qur’anic and Prophetic teachings one might think of pertaining to the different aspects and spheres of human life and existence, they all flow from that vision. Their understanding and applica- tion should therefore be guided by that framework or “niche,” to use the suggestive Qur’anic term that inspired Abu Hamid al-Ghazali to write one of his most important works. In what follows, an overview is offered of the main tenets and overarch- ing features of what may be described as an Islamic perspective on gender issues and the “man-woman question,” so to speak. Before that, though, some essential statistical information is pertinent in this respect and should, therefore, be brought to light. As a general rule, the Qur’anic discourse is addressed to all human beings, men and women alike, unless otherwise con- textually specified. This is in total agreement with the nature of the Arabic language in which it was revealed, something that is in no way abnormal or at odds with the general norms of the majority of natural human languages, to say the least. The following data are worthy of consideration and reflection. The plural noun al-nas (meaning “people,” “human beings,” “mankind,” etc.) occurs 241 times in the Qur’an, 20 cases of which are in the vocative form (ya ayyuha al-nas, “O People”), while the generic noun al-insan (denoting “human being,” “man”) is used 65 times, most of them in the vocative form (ya ayyuha al-insan, “O Man”). Another important expres-

37 sion signifying the human species or mankind (ya bani Adam, “O Children of Adam”) occurs five times in the vocative form. Statements abound with generic articles that also include men and women alike, Muslim or non-Muslim. Other than that, expressions and sentences referring specifically to the believers who have embraced Islam occur dozens of times in different generic verbal and noun forms (alladhina amanu, mu’minun, muslimun), not forgetting the wide use of generic pronouns and conditional clauses denoting general statements of universal import. All such forms include men and women personally and simultaneously, unless otherwise implied by the context in which they occur, and this to a remarkably limited degree. That is, both man and woman, whatever their state, capacity or status might be in the community, society or culture to which they belong, are spoken to in the Qur’an on an equal footing by virtue of their common primordial human nature fashioned by Allah their Creator, who bestowed dignity on all human beings and raised them over most of His creation (al-Isra’, 17:70). Irrespective of their gender variation and sexual difference, man and woman are equal recipients and bearers of the divine commands, obligations and rights enshrined in the Qur’an and elaborated by the Prophet due to their equally shared humanity, which stems from the sameness of their essence and unity of their species, all of which are inextricably rooted in their primordial nature, or fitra, to use the all-embracing Qur’anic term (al-Rum, 30:30). Moreover, and notwithstanding the many verses relating specifically to women in different respects, the Qur’an exhibits a remarkably feminine tone even in the names of some of its suras, whatever the naming authority might be. Four suras thus stand out in manifestation of this tone, with three of them having fem-

38 inine nouns as their names, namely al-Nisa’ (the third longest chapter in the mushaf), al-Mujadila, and al-Mumtahana, while the fourth, Maryam, bears the name of a prominent female figure in religious history, that is, Mary, mother of Jesus. This observation is not contradicted by counterexamples of suras named after male characters, such as Yunus, Yusuf, or Ibrahim, simply because these are the names of prophets whose divine messages were meant for both man and woman. Though it is not our intention, for the time being at least, to draw any specific conclusion from this observation, it remains, however, a fact deserving serious reflection. Let us now try to see how the relationship between man and woman in the phenomenal world has been depicted in the Qur’an, and how it was manifested in the age of revelation during the lifetime of the Prophet and under his guidance. There are many verses that emphasize the fact of man and woman having emanated from one and the same origin, and thus carrying in themselves the same essence. We have already encountered some such verses in the preceding section.14 However, two verses require further attention for their immediate bearing on the following discussion. Not only do the verses in question reiterate the essential unity of man and woman as partaking of the same essential human reality, but they also describe in a picturesque manner the kind of relationship between them. Thus we read, again in chronological order of revelation, the following Qur’anic statements: 1. “It is He who has created you [all] out of one living entity (nafs wahida), and out of it brought into being its mate (zawjaha), so that man might incline [with love] toward woman.” (al-A‘raf, 7:189)15 2. “And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates of your own kind (min anfusikum), so that you might

39 incline toward them (li-taskunu ilayha), and He engen- ders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think.” (al- Rum, 30:21) Both verses, as can be clearly seen, indicate the natural inclination of the two mates toward one another by virtue of their being created from the same entity, as if bound together by some sort of magnetic force. In fact, the word “inclination” does not convey the richness and breadth of meaning signified by the Arabic phrases “li-yaskuna ilayha” and “li-taskunu ilayha.” Of the many semantic denotations of the root verb sakana and its different (verbal and nominal) derivatives, five basic mean- ings are of special relevance and far-reaching significance in the Qur’anic context. They are, in ascending order from the physical and sensual to the lofty and immaterial: settling down and dwelling (sukna, iqama, qarar); quietude and gentleness (hudu’, wada’a); safety, peace, and security (amn, aman); tranquility and serenity (tuma’nina); and finally companion- ship (uns, isti’nas). A sixth meaning can yet be added to these five, namely obedience and submission (khudhu’, dhilla).16 As clearly appears from these and other verses of the Qur’an, these feelings and attitudes are not one-directional; rather, they con- stitute a reciprocal mutual phenomenon. In the light of these considerations, being a description of the nature of the bond between the two complementary halves of the human species, the two phrases highlighted above encap- sulate in a very condensed manner the physical, emotional, moral, and sociological dimensions of the relationship obtain- ing between man and woman. This psychosociological content of that bond is reinforced in the second verse by two important values that give it intensity, profundity and sustainability: love (mawadda) and tenderness (rahma), the latter being derived

40 from the same root verb from which two of the most beautiful names of Allah in the Qur’an are derived (al-Rahman and al-Ra- him), and from which one of most elementary filial ties among human beings gets its name (rahim, womb). Hence, one can see the reason or perhaps reasons why the Qur’an, at the beginning of Surat al-Nisa’, links its command to human beings to be conscious of Allah, in whose name they demand their rights from one another, with being conscious of the ties of kinship (arham) in whose name they do the same. The moral and social significance and implications of this fact become more evident when we remember that it is in this sura that the Qur’an lays down most of the juridical rules regulating different aspects of the man-woman relationship. In other words, Islam unwaver- ingly sanctifies and glorifies human ties of kinship, which can exist and flourish only through the fundamental relationship between man and woman. Likewise, pitting woman against man and vice versa is totally alien to the spirit, ethics and worldview of the Qur’an in every conceivable sense. Worse still, any idea of the Qur’an and the Prophet being prejudiced against women is anything but the truth. It should suffice to look into the following verses describing and denouncing the mental and behavioral condition of many Arabs of the pre-Islamic era (jahiliyya) with regard to the female gender: As it is, they ascribe – out of what We provide for them as sustenance – a share unto things of which they know nothing. By Allah, you shall most certainly be called to account for all your false imagery! (56) And [thus, too,] they ascribe daughters unto Allah, who is limitless in His glory – whereas for themselves [they would choose, if they could, only] what they desire: (57) for, whenever any of them

41 is given the glad tiding of [the birth of] a girl, his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger, (58) avoiding all people because of the [alleged] evil of the glad tiding which he has received, [and debating within himself:] Shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it] – or shall he bury it in the dust? Behold, evil indeed is whatever they decide! (59) (al-Nahl, 16:56-59) After reproaching the Arab polytheists for their wrong beliefs, including the ascription of daughters to Allah, and con- demning their pagan practice of dedicating portions of their wealth to their false deities, the Qur’an turns to one abhorrent aspect of their life that is a consequence of their wrong belief system and decadent culture. This has to do with their attitude toward the female human being. A very revealing contrast is made between the positive value the Qur’an attaches to the birth of a female child, as indicated by the phrase “glad tiding,” and the pagans’ negative reaction to it that goes from unjus- tified sadness and feelings of shame to such an inhuman and cruel act as getting rid of her altogether by burying her alive, as indicated in Surat al-Takwir (81: 8-9). Grounded in a profound metaphysical, spiritual and moral vision of the essential bond between men and women as the two sides of one single human reality, Islam has promulgated its teachings and devised its rules for both men and women based on balance and justice. None of them is supposed to receive Allah’s commands and worship Him via the mediation or under the tutelage of someone else except by way of learning and knowing, let alone submit to them by force. Woman and man stand out equally as free moral agents worthy of enjoying rights, undertaking obligations and fulfilling functions in the different domains of life so far as they are qualified and com-

42 petent to do so. In all these regards, and as men and women set out to fulfill their roles in life, the relationship Islam envisages between them is not one of opposition, animosity, antagonism, or hatred. On the contrary, Islam sees it as a relationship of complementarity, solidarity and mutual consolidation whereby, as the Qur’an has it, “the believers, both men and women, are close unto one another (ba’dhuhum awliya’ ba’dh) and all of them enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong” (al-Tawba, 9:71), just as male and female hypo- crites would be doing the contrary as “they enjoin the doing of what is wrong and forbid the doing of what is right.” (al-Tawba, 9:67) Simply stated, “women are the twin halves (shaqa’iq) of men,” as the Prophet eloquently put it, and thus they strive together to accomplish their divinely ordained mission in this world by promoting good and well-being and discouraging evil and harm according to a well defined moral code and system of legal ordinances that are all geared toward the realization of certain essential values (qiyam) and higher goals (maqasid), without which human sociohistorical existence will sooner or later deteriorate and collapse; indeed the existence and contin- uation of the human species itself will be at stake. It is within this holistic view of the nature, worth and purpose of man and woman that any differences between them are properly understood and positively appreciated. It is from this lofty horizon and in this great light that femininity and masculinity as well as gender and sexuality unveil themselves as part of the great wonder of the Creator and His creation, just as they present themselves as a manifestation of the fathomless wisdom of life and the countless bounties and blessings that human beings enjoy without realizing their worth and significance.

43 Conclusion

The spirit and motivation that have guided and informed my reflection and discussion in this paper can be stated plainly as follows: it is high time we disentangled our thinking of man and woman and our treatment of issues pertaining to them from the alienating and antagonistic language of power and confliction. For the truth and reality of which we should never lose sight is that man and woman encounter one another as sister and brother, mother and son, daughter and father, wife and husband, niece and uncle, nephew and aunt, etc., before any other encounter in different arenas of the public sphere. If these very essential and natural bonds and their inherent human, moral and social values are undermined, any substi- tutes invented to replace them will only exacerbate an already worsening situation. Having said that, I humbly acknowledge that what I have presented is only a preliminary attempt at opening a new direction and offering a different perspective in a debate that seems to have reached a kind of a deadlock due to the logic of negation and self-negation that has dominated it. If I only make others realize the need for a serious pause for revision and reconsider- ation, I will consider my effort a success.

44 Notes 1 Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi, “Malik Bennabi’s Response to Western Modernity: Contex- tualizing The Qur’anic Phenomenon,” in Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi (ed.), The Qur’an, Modernity and Globalization: Studies in Commemoration of Malik Bennabi (Gombak: IIUM Press, 2014), p. 2. 2 I have borrowed the expression “recovering the measure” from Robert Cunnings Neville’s insightful book Recovery of the Measure: Interpretation and Nature (New York: State University of New York Press, 1989). 3 Firstly, the Qur’anic genesis, so to speak, was not given to the Prophet once and for all in an earlier, middle or later revelation. Rather, it was parceled out in a chronological sequence cov- ering the different stages of the revelation of the Qur’an, especially the major phases of the Makkan period. Secondly, in the final arrangement and layout of the Qur’an (both with respect to its chapters, or suras, and of its verses in each chapter), those parcels have been placed in such a fashion that the reader will encounter that narrative throughout the parts of the fourfold division of the mushaf. The suras containing the Qur’anic narrative of human genesis are, according to the chronological order of revelation, Saad (38), al-A’raf (39), Taha (45), al-Isra’ (50), al-Hijr (54), al-Kahf (68), and al-Baqara (87), with the number after each sura referring to its order in the overall chronological sequence of the Qur’an’s chapters. As for their order in the established arrangement of the mushaf, it goes as follows: al-Baqara (2), al-A‘raf (7), al-Hijr (15), al-Isra’ (17), al-Kahf (18), Taha (20), and Saad (38). With the exception of al-Baqara, which was revealed in Madina, all the other six are Makkan revelations. 4 The reader is kindly advised to refer to the previous note on the chronological and arrangement order of the suras under consideration. 5 Reference to symbolic connotation of the tree. 6 Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust), p. 121-122, note 1. 7 “And the Lord Allah caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord Allah had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man… And Adam called his wife Eve; because she was the mother of all human beings.” (Genesis 2:21-23 and 3:20) 8 Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi, Kitab al-Ayn, edited by Abdulhamid Hendawi (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 2003), vol. 2, p. 200; Abu al-Fadl Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Mukarram Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-Arab, edited by Abdullah Ali al-Kabir et al. (Beirut: Dar Sader Publishers, N. D.), vol. 2, pp. 291-293. 9 Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 122. 10 Hasan al-Turabi, al-Tafsir al-Tawhidi (Beirut/London: Dar al Saqi, 1st edition, 2004), vol. 1, pp. 346-347. In this respect Turabi refers to Al Imran, 3:48,59. 11 In order to bring home this point, I have intentionally stuck to a more or less literal rendering of the latter part of the verse with an italicization of the pronouns in question, preferring it over Asad’s interpretative translation, which reads as follows: “so that man might incline [with love] toward woman.” The Message of the Qur’an, p. 279. 12 Qur’an (al-Mu’minun, 23:12 and al-Sajda, 32:8); the two numbers after the names of the suras refer to their order in the chronological order of revelation and arrangement of the mushaf respectively. 13 Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 1148, note 2. 14 Consider, for example, the following verses: al-Qiyama, 75:39; al-Zumar, 39:6; al-Shura, 42:11; al-Nahl, 16:72. 15 We have here cited Asad’s interpretative translation instead of the literal rendering mentioned above. 16 Al-Farahidi, Kitab al-Ayn, vol. 2, p. 261; Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-Arab, vol. 13, pp. 210-218; Al-Zamakhshari, Asas al-Balagha, edited by Muhammad Basil Uyun al-Sud (Beirut: Dar Al-Ko- tob Al-Ilmiyah. 1st edition, 1419/1998), vol. 1, p. 467.

Commentary on the Research

Serene Jones

47 Introductory Comments:

Let me begin by saying how honored I am to be a part of this discussion today, and to be a participant in this historic gath- ering. I am humbled by the task you have asked of me, and, truthfully, I have a woeful sense of my own inadequacy with respect to this task. My own scholarly background is in Chris- tian Systematic Theology and Ethics, with two specific focus areas: sixteenth-century Reformation thought; and contemporary religion, gender studies, and global markets. I do not, however, have a background in Qur’anic studies. I wish I did! In the process of working on my response to this very important paper, I have learned a great deal about that field, its history, its current challenges, and, most importantly, about the Qur’an and its readings. I’m deeply appreciative of Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi’s paper: “Gender Issues in Islam: Recovering the Measure and Restoring the Balance.” It was a difficult but beautiful journey for me to travel through these pages and to wrestle with the concepts and proposals that it puts forth. To say I felt like a “fish out of water” would be too strong, however, for there were surprising moments of reso- nance, moments of great and knowing illumination, in which I saw strong connections between the work of El-Mesawi and my own. At other times, however, because of my basic lack of

48 knowledge of the field, I found myself more confused by my own ignorance than enlightened. What I offer here in these few short comments is by no means a comprehensive or synthetic response, and I am certain that by the end of our conversation, I will have to rewrite the responses I’m putting forth based on what I learn. The French feminist theorist Luce Irigaray once suggested that the most productive analysis happens, intellectually, when we “place one thing near to another” and see what light is made in their play, one against and next to the other. This is my attempt at gleaning the value of such nearness.

Part I:

Let me first offer a few comments about the first section of El-Mesawi’s paper. It covers an impressive amount of material as it explores “the question of women” in Muslim and non-Mus- lim materials over the past one hundred years. One interesting question to ask at the beginning of the paper is why it posits the topic as the “question of women”? What direction does our conversation presume to take when the framing itself is posed through the terms of a questioning? A query? A pondering? Why choose this term rather than something like the “topic” of women or the “concept” or “lived reality” of women? It would be interesting to think together about the signature terms we use when issues related to gender emerge. Does the very use of “query images” itself suggest from the start the essential insta- bility of the subject matter? In reading the paper, as a Christian theologian engaged in the constructive and normative work of thinking about the Christian tradition in which I stand, I identified strongly with El-Mesawi’s recognition that his own constructive analysis is

49 likewise not limited to empirical or historical study but happily and enthusiastically takes up the normative endeavor and does so in a holistic manner. Again, this approach is very close to the enterprise that I have undertaken over the years to write as a theologian who draws on historical and empirical analysis about my given topics but whose work is wedded to a larger, and not strictly scholarly, driving question: what is the most healthy and truthful way we should be thinking about gender parity and gender equality within our religious communities? What is the ethical, communal frame we should put around “the question of women” so that we may all lead better, more abundant lives? That said, my theological willingness to position my work in the land of the normative and the ethical – indeed, in value-laden land – often wins me a suspicious glance or two (if not worse) from more determinedly “secular” religion scholars who primarily see their task as description, not normativity. I am curious to hear how this dynamic plays itself out in the world of Islamic scholarship, particularly scholarship related to gender. Specifically, how do your scholarly peers receive work on gender that from the start claims its theologically normative foundations? If it’s similar to my own situation, it not only gains a suspicious glance from the secular but also wins a doubly suspicious (if not outrightly hostile) glance from the pious faithful who think I should not be talking about gender at all. It’s a difficult dynamic to manage, caught between a secular rock and a religious hard place. Are there similarities in the case of this work’s reception? I am eager to hear that the wisdom of Islam has avoided this often mind-numbing dynamic. With respect to this tangle of issues, El-Mesawi makes some strong claims about the inadequacy of the conceptual frames that have plagued conversations about “the question

50 of women” in Islamic conversations for the past one hundred years. He observes, quite rightly, that in a Western context, nar- rowly defined, secularized notions of “freedom” and “equality” have been used to frame the discussion about what qualifies as a legitimate claim to make about the nature of women and their relation to men. I agree entirely – and wholeheartedly applaud this critique – that most discussions about gender and about women have been too tightly tied to biased, secularist assump- tions about human nature. When it comes to engaging with the question of women, we need to deepen dramatically our understanding of terms like “freedom” and “equality,” and they can be deepened by engagement with the religious traditions that gave birth to these two concepts originally. In my own case, I have written extensively about the sixteenth-century theologian John Calvin, who in many ways bequeathed the notions of freedom and equality to modern, Western political theory, and yet whose own views of these two topics would be unrecogniz- able to the distinctly secularist bent that they have been given over the past hundred years. There is much to be gained, for us all, from recognizing that the notions of freedom and equality that run through conceptions of the self, and concomitantly of women, have deep roots also in Muslim sources from the Middle Ages forward into the present day. These Islamic resources are rich and endless in their variety and wisdom, and yet, more often than not, they are ignored by secular theorists who prefer to treat freedom and equality as if they had sprung sui generis from an ahistorical Enlightenment mind. Arguing in a similar vein, El-Mesawi suggests that if we want to frame the question of women properly, we should not fall into dichotomous binarisms of female and male, women and men, feminine and masculine – and, again, the list is long – that make nuanced and creative conversation untenable. He

51 asks us, instead, to drop our analysis down into the sacred texts that ground us, and the lived experience that shapes us. His pragmatism is, on this matter, refreshing! As one reads into the plethora of literature on the question of gender, especially by feminists and their opponents, one gets the impression that we are in the presence of an unbridgeable chasm or insurmountable mountain setting women and men apart as two irreconcilable warring camps. Nothing could be further from the truth than such a portrayal, whose authors, from both sides, seem to be blind or indifferent to the ordinary facts of mankind’s everyday life, whereby millions of males and females throughout the world strive together in all spheres of life to shoulder the burdens of their earthly existence and play their respective and complementary roles, thus fulfilling their noble mission of promoting goodness and welfare for themselves and all of their fellow humans. That said, El-Mesawi rightly asks us, indeed strongly encourages us, not to let this decision to anchor the normative discussion in common-lived experience be the occasion for anyone to sidestep the gross and continued injustices that women and others have faced historically in the name of religious practices. Again, I couldn’t agree more. To lose sight of the vast and real suffering of women would make idle scholars of us all. To shift one’s ground to the normative theological politics of lived theological practices should take us closer to, not farther away from, the monumental suffering we seek to address. A third important point made by El-Mesawi (that I strong applaud) is that in recent years critiques of Islam’s position on

52 women have in large part been launched from secularist perspectives that show little understanding of, much less respect for, religious worldviews, be they Muslim, Christian... and the list goes on. Even more distinctly feminist secularist as well as Christian critiques of Islam on gender have been driven by sociopolitical agendas that are more concerned to spread imperial and colonial ideologies than they are to actually address the suffering of women. In other words, feminist criticism framed as neoliberal colonial ideology often chooses to make gender the case study for a political, geopolitical, battle that has nothing to do with gender – but provides an easy Western hook. On this point, I could not agree more with El-Mesawi’s position. I am repeatedly horrified by the demeaning views and the shallow critiques of Islamic positions on women that one finds in much of Western feminism. It’s neoliberal colonialism at its worst. (Let me add that as a Christian feminist I often experience the same from secular feminists who believe that for me to be engaged as a religious person in a conversation about the liberation of women is ludicrous; that somehow being religious and engaging with the question of women calls into question how intelligent or liberated I, myself, might be.) The conservatism and blindness of the secular feminist academy is disturbing at best, dangerous at worst. This historic situating of “the question of women” as a play- thing that is batted back and forth between the two idols of a “strong, progressive, and dominant Occident” and, on the other side, a “weak, decadent, and dominated Orient” is a mythic farce. But it’s a poisonous one, to be sure. Nowhere is this farcical scene more vividly enacted than when Western discussions of “the question of women” in Islam are framed as a question of veiling, unveiling, and re-veiling. This farcical refrain is tire- some but persistent; you hear it not just in the academy but in

53 the broader culture as well. As El-Mesawi rightly points out, when it’s not about trivialized veils, the other favorite farcical frame is to shift to discussions of the de/oversexualized objec- tification of women’s bodies – is there too little, too much, too this, too that? Last but not least, El-Mesawi reminds us that the conversation has tended to track discussions about women by continually returning to a comparison of women with men – a dynamic that inherently polarizes and reduces our imaginative range of possibilities. To all of these points, I again offer a hearty “yes.” El-Mesawi has successfully diagnosed Western plays of mind that, rather than opening up our thinking about women in Islam, have limited and constrained our imaginations as well as political possibilities. And many of these farcical framings have shut out traditional Christian voices in the unfolding discussions of gender as well. Within the constraints of this Western, secular imagination, there is little room for accounts of reality that resist the frame at its core.

Part II:

El-Mesawi’s exegesis of the Qur’an’s account of the creation of “humanity” is compelling, illuminating, and, for me, pro- foundly inspiring. Thank you for this. It is brilliant. Let me discuss, as I move through his analysis, the places where this account resonates or not with Christian accounts of the creation of humanity. First, El-Mesawi begins with an observation about the present state of affairs in which the human community finds itself caught in a profound state of “imbalance.” “Solipsism,” “sophistry,” and “nihilism” are the three terms used to grasp the character of this imbalance. “Imbalance” is a fascinating

54 term to use to describe the problems of our age. Its metaphoric economy leans more toward an integrated understanding of how diverse component parts of a whole cohere and complement each other, and the dangers that follow from the loss of that balance or coherence. Comparatively speaking, Christian theology has more often than not, for its metaphoric economy of what we call “sin,” used images of impurity, moral degeneration, disease, and corruption. Imbalance is sometimes used, but not often. All of the more usual terms have been historically applied to whole groups of people – women, slaves, and the infidel. This understanding of sin, when applied to whole groups of people, carries a moral and ethical punch that has been the basis of treating as “sinful” large sections of humanity, and has been the justification for grossly unjust and often inhuman ways of engaging with the Other. Feminist theologians in the Christian tradition have had to wrestle with the Christian version of our creation story, which articulates this kind of moral, impure harm, for centuries. It is very clear to me that the moral and political consequences of “imbalance” as a language for human brokenness is much less damaging and more collectively and systematically empowering than the Christian notion of “sin” on this score. Secondly, when El-Mesawi begins to construct for us the broader cosmic frame, he uses a metaphoric economy derived from notions of light, unity, balance, and relational connec- tivity. Beautiful! In the history of Christian thought, when we come to the broader cosmic story, we have had to deal with a series of assumed beginnings – orders of being – that have been combined to create the conditions for enslavement, not balance. It’s remarkable that in the Qur’anic stories you find none of this. The original human is not male, but human. And

55 the second human is “partner” to the first, not woman. It is important here to note that the second is “partner,” called to be in relation to the first. The first and the second are together as one, and yet remain two. Note that there is a dyad here, but it is a dyad marked by their shared essence; their difference and distinction rests in the necessity of their being created to relate to Allah and to one another. They share their calling by Allah to be in the world together, in community, in cooperation, in interaction, in “balance together,” celebrating their essential unity and essence in Allah. Wow! There is in this story no fundamental inequality that sits at the foundational origin of our understanding of humanity (as there is in Christianity). Instead, there is a call to be responsible and free moral agents, to be people who enjoy shared rights and obligations, and are called to create the conditions of universal human flourishing before Allah. This story alone, with its beauty and its power, has taken off the table, in terms of religious discussions about gender, the key issues against which Christian feminists have had to fight for literally millennia. We need this Islamic story to be taught in our Christian seminaries as a sign, as a teaching, as a moral emblem of the kind of human economy of relating that the best of our own scriptures often hints at but fails to realize.

A Few Concluding Questions:

So let me now conclude with a couple of questions that I put before us with a request for El-Mesawi and others to elaborate more fully. First of all, I must admit that the only point in this paper where I began to get slightly worried about the consequences for a gender analysis was near the end, when the notion of “com-

56 plementarity” was raised. I’d like for you to say more about this. What does “complementarity” actually consist of? Oftentimes in the Christian tradition, “complementarity” has been used as the basis for underwriting an understanding of male and female in which fundamental differences of masculinity and femininity are essentialized and put in an “order” that justifies male superiority. Gender complementarity, in other words, has been in many cases the basis for reductive understandings of the differences between men and women that, when applied to an ethical scheme, justify gross injustice. I have a sense from this paper that a very different understanding of “complementarity” is being elaborated. “Complementarity” here seems not to be tied to a sense of essentialized differences, but rather to simply highlight the ways in which, in human relations, we are called to complement, to enhance, to interact with the Other so that differences are acknowledged and shared life together is desired, a shared life not bifurcated by gender reductions. Is this the correct reading? So, second, if the notion of complementarity used here is not gender-reductive, then how do we account for – and I realize this is a huge question – the fact that over time, in almost every religious tradition, we see notions of gender complementarity that now, today, underwrite the systemic devaluation of women? If it does not come from Holy Scripture in this case, then where does it come from? How do we get a religious/ historical account of its origins and its sustained and often entrenched presence? Third, the paper is understandably focused on the question of “humanity” and its distinction from the rest of the non-human, created, and Allah-loved world. Today, in Christianity, we have had to face theologically the great damage that our scripture does when it states in its creation story that humans are not

57 just different from, but superior to, the broader, non-human, created order, and its concomitant call for human beings to dominate and subdue that order. What we see laid out before us today are, sadly, the devastating consequences of this division manifest in the crisis of climate change. As a Christian theologian, and as a feminist theologian, I wrestle with this dyad of the human and the non-human. How might we think differently about it, so as to address the crisis around us in its spiritual depths? Could we begin to imagine the human and non-human themselves as two partners, of shared essence, called to unity, bound together by their mutual implication, and their possibilities for the present life? Could you elaborate for me on this issue within the texts you engage with here? How does this version of humanity, as unified in essence and shared moral accountability, lead you to then lay out, on the basis of the Qur’an, an interactive model for humanity’s relation to the environment? Like human-to- human relations, is our relationship one of partners? Shared essence? Moral accountability? … Last question: Throughout this wonderful paper, terms like “moral agency,” “complementarity,” “mutuality,” “beauty,” and “partnership” have been used to describe the character of human-human relationships. It is often noted that these terms and the form of relationship they inspire have their grounding in the Allah who creates a humanity that embodies the values that mark Allah, Allahself. This “Allah-Creator” hovers over every page of the essay. Is it possible to say more about this Creator’s love, agency, and morally obligatory character? Is it possible to say more about human and divine shared essence? I ask this question quite timidly because I am not at all sure what it implies within the realm of Islamic thought. It comes out of my experience as a feminist theologian working in the

58 Christian tradition. I have found over the years that if I follow the logic of my critiques of the most dangerous Christian views of gender, often based on distortions of readings of scripture, I eventually find myself crawling up toward and into the world of thoughts and non-thoughts about Allah and divinity itself. I have a strong sense that the same does not hold for Islam in its view of the Allahhead, but in relation to these gender questions, can you help me understand what this other path might look like? Again, let me say how honored I am to have been invited to be part of this conversation. I look forward to hearing more and to learning more from the valuable insights of this paper. As a Christian feminist theologian, I am committed to helping straighten out the mess that we have made of so much of our world. For all of us living today, it is clear that we need to better understand men and women and their differences and their political positionality. It is crucial to the survival not just of our own religious tradition but of the planet itself. What a mighty task we have before us.

Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) P.O. Box 34110, Doha, Qatar | Phone: (+974) 4454 2840 | Fax: (+974) 4454 6576 www.cilecenter.org