Rights of women in Islam

IT is a general concept in the West that in the eyes of Islam woman is inferior to man. They staunchly believe that there is no such thing as “rights of woman” in Islam. This misconception is partly due to their lack of access to the Quran and the Traditions, and partly due to the irresponsible attitude of certain Muslim jurists and groups.

In fact, Islam is the only system which contains provisions that ensure equality between man and woman. No religion, no system has done even a fraction of what Islam has done to secure her rights and ensure a status for her that is at par with that of man. The status accorded to woman by Islam is unique and has no parallel in any other society.

If, on the other hand, we look at the western woman, we find that her rights were not acknowledged voluntarily or out of kindness or compassion. The early Greek philosophers had very disparaging views of women. They argued that women were not full human beings and were by nature deficient. The West inherited this thought and we find it persistent throughout the Middle-Ages. This concept was not discarded even during the Age of Enlightenment. Writers of that period, like Rousseau and Voltaire, looked at women as a burden.

In his book “Emile”, Rousseau proposed a different form of education for women because he believed that women were unable to comprehend what men were able to do. In other words, he believed women had lesser intellectual abilities than man. It was in the 1800s that the first feminine movement emerged in the West. The first laws that allowed women to own property also appeared in the same century. As time moved on, certain circumstances also aided women in their struggle for their rights such as shortage of manpower in times of war, demands of industrial development, etc., gave them the opportunity to learn, to work, to earn, to appear as an equal to man. They were forced by circumstances and in turn they forced themselves through and acquired a new status.

Still, the present set of rights that the Western woman attained after a long effort, fall short of those of her Muslim counterpart. Islam has granted rights to woman that suit her nature and disposition, and give her full security and protection. Also, in declaring man and woman as equal human beings, Islam is centuries ahead of the western legal systems.

However, while discussing the rights of man and woman, the distinction between equality and similarity must be kept in mind. Man and woman have been created equal, not identical. In Islam, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man, but they are not necessarily the same. Both have been fashioned differently from each other, so their roles are also different. The variation in their functions does not imply that one is inferior to the other.

Here, it must be mentioned that if certain rights of woman are being ignored, restricted, or denied in present-day Islamic states, it is a fault of the Muslims — governments and people — who are not enforcing them, not Islam’s. Let’s have a brief look at some of the rights granted by Islam:

1. Reward for good deeds: The Quran makes no difference between man and woman regarding the bestowal of reward for the good deeds performed by him or her: “Whoever does good, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will certainly make him live a happy life, and We will certainly give them their reward for the best of what they did.” (16:97) “Surely the men who submit and the women who submit; and the believing men and the believing women; and the obeying men and the obeying women; and the truthful men and the truthful women; and the patient men and the patient women; and the humble men and the humble women; and the charitable men and the charitable women; and the fasting men and the fasting women; and the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard their chastity; and the men who remember Allah and the women who remember Allah - Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.” (33:35)

2. Freedom of expression: Man and woman are equally entitled to freedom of expression. Women not only expressed their opinion freely, but also argued and participated in important discussions with the Prophet (PBUH) and other Muslim leaders. There were occasions when women expressed their views on matters of public interest and stood in opposition to the Caliphs, who then accepted their sound arguments.

3. Right to education: Woman is equal to man in the pursuit of education and knowledge. The Prophet declared: “Search for knowledge is a sacred duty imposed on every Muslim man and woman.”

4. Right to inherit: Man and woman have been given equal right to inherit from the parents and the near relatives: “Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave...” (4:7)

A woman’s right to inherit is as much protected by law as that of a man. If the deceased wishes to deprive her by making a will in favour of other relations or any other cause, the law will not allow it. However, it must be remembered that whereas the right to inherit of both man and woman is equal, their shares in the inheritance may differ. In certain cases, a woman gets half of what a man in her position would get. The cause of this variation is the financial responsibilities and liabilities with which man has been burdened, not woman.

As compared to Muslim man, Muslim woman is financially secure and provided for. If she is a wife, her husband is the provider; if she is a mother, it is the son; if she is a daughter, it is the father; if she is a sister, it is the brother; and so on. If she has no relations, then it is the responsibility of the state to maintain her. In no case she will be left helpless. Whereas, a man, except in one or two cases, is supposed to not only look after his family and other needy relations, but also to make financial contributions to good causes in society. Thus, a larger share in the inheritance does not depict the supremacy of man over woman, but it is rather a concession granted to him in lieu of his financial burden.

5. Right to earn: Islam has given man and woman equal rights to contract, to enterprise, and to earn and possess independently. The Quran says: “...For men is the benefit of what they earn. And for women is the benefit of what they earn. And ask Allah of His grace...” (4:32)

Women conducted trade and business even during the time of the Prophet. In fact, his first wife was a successful and famous business woman of Makkah.

6. Legal protection: In the eyes of Islam, a woman’s life, property, and honour are as sacred as those of a man. If she commits an offence, her penalty is no less or more than a man’s in a similar case. If she is wronged or harmed, she gets due compensation, equal to what a man in her position would get.

7. Right to contract marriage: Contrary to prevalent belief, in Islam, there is no concept of forced marriages of women. Parents have no right to force their daughters to marry against their will. Just as a woman has the right to choose her spouse, she also has the right to seek divorce from him.

8. Right to participate in public life: Islam does not ask woman to confine herself to her house. It gives woman the right to participate in public life along with man. History shows that women played active role in all walks of life. Women not only participated in trade, but even took part in battles. They were never shut behind iron bars or considered worthless creatures.

Laila Al-Ghifaria would nurse the wounded in battles. Suffiah Bint Abdul Muttalib even fought and killed the enemies. Women were also rewarded with booty in the same manner as Muslim men. The Second Caliph of Islam, Umar, appointed a woman, Shaffa Bint Abdullah, to supervise the market. He would often consult her and held her in high esteem. Under the Fatmids, a woman, Arwa Bint Ahmad, even served as the Governor of Yemen.

Conclusion: The verdict of Islam on the inter se status of man and woman is the only complete, logical, and practical declaration pertaining to the matter, as it always handles the issue by making a distinction between equality and sameness. The Quran, the Traditions of the Prophet, and the attitude of the early Muslim scholars prove that the position and rights of woman are equal to those of man. In fact, Islam has safeguarded the rights of women by putting them into practice as essential articles of Faith.

Trade and social concerns

THERE were 6,000 negotiators, 3,000 registered business and NGO lobbyists, and some 5,000 stakeholder-protesters from 149 countries at the WTO’s recent Hong Kong ministerial. Non-official participants offered over 600 workshops and other events. Fairly small by the standards of the biggest summits; but then, Hong Kong isn’t sprawling enough to accommodate huge numbers.

The ministerial did not get off to a propitious start. Industrialised-country negotiators were especially peeved. When they arrived in Hong Kong, they were greeted by a quarter-page newspaper ad that asked, “Will WTO’s trade negotiators take the food out of children’s mouths?” It had been placed, not by any NGO or peasants coalition, but by — of all institutions — Unicef, UNHCR, and WFP.

The advertisement called on delegates to protect food aid donations for emergencies. Even before WTO entered the picture, food aid has dropped by half since 1999, while the numbers of those affected by hunger have soared. So certain UN agencies were concerned. People in disaster situations cannot wait for long-term projects to help them grow food or earn the cash to buy it; they have to eat immediately and regularly to get a self-reliant process going.

Last year, three-fourths of donated food came from rich donor countries in the form of wheat, maize, rice, beans, and vegetable oil, which is most profitable for subsidy-receiving big farmers and agro-businesses. Half that food went to nations that are not even WTO members — they are much too poor.

Peter Mandelson, European trade commissioner, responded angrily with a letter to the editor. But he had a point. People will remember how after the Asian tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake humanitarian agencies repeatedly appealed for donations in cash rather than in kind. The EU had finally recognized that aid shipped great, slow distances, especially food, usually came too late. Money, on the other hand, which could be transmitted immediately, could purchase locally available food, thereby benefiting local producers and the local economy as well.

Mandelson deplored the fact that some countries “use government purchasing to offload surplus commodities onto world markets in the guise of food aid,” pointing a finger at the US. Countries should still donate food aid but as cash contributions with no strings attached, he said. Some had already given up on WTO as a viable institution even before the ministerial. Three weeks earlier, the Commonwealth Business Forum passed a resolution in Malta, suggesting that if the Doha round of trade negotiations failed “countries that are willing should explore the possibility of establishing a Commonwealth preferential or free trade area”. The meeting was attended by over 600 leading personalities from the business sector and governments representatives from 50 countries, and included over 50 ministers and six heads of state.

According to a World Bank study, a successful Doha round could add 300 billion dollars to global profits. However, only 48 billion dollars of that — less that one-sixth — would go to developing countries that represented five-sixth — five billion — of the world’s people. The per capita addition would be pitiful, and people would still be deeply entrenched in poverty. It did not sound promising.

Notwithstanding the WTO, other countries including the US, were making bilateral deals; so why couldn’t Commonwealth countries do the same among themselves? Commonwealth trade currently accounts for 20 per cent of international trade and investment, making it the second largest bloc after the EU.

Protesters came from all over the world, mainly agricultural, and developing countries. The desperate but determined South Korean farmers had come 1,500-strong, well-organized and rehearsed, and therefore tended to be more visible than those who came in country groups of twenties or fifties or just a handful.) At Cancun a Korean farmer had committed suicide to make his point. His compatriots at home and abroad have since taken up his slogan “WTO kills farmers”. Farmer suicides have continued in unacceptably large numbers in a number of agricultural countries including South Asia.

In Hong Kong, nothing so drastic was planned. All the protesters wanted were to be allowed to peacefully enter the Convention Centre for a brief while to present their concerns to official delegates. After all, it was supposedly for the sake of ordinary folk everywhere that the talks were named the “development round”, suggesting that people and development would receive top priority. That would have meant putting food security and sovereignty, social welfare and local industrialization before other concerns.

Alex MacGillivray of the London-based think-tank Account Ability, who has been following world summits, dismissed any such pangs of conscience as he did 15 years of economists’ claims that freeing world trade would equally benefit everyone. “Trade negotiators don’t believe a word of it, which is why they fight so hard and so dirty for their country or company,” he commented, “To the negotiators, trade is not about cooperation; it is about cutthroat competitiveness. It’s an old but fair criticism that the very culture of trade negotiators makes a mockery of the goal of a development round intended to benefit poor nations. Fleets of black limousines ferry delegates from luxury hotel to conference centre to nearby restaurant — all within easy walking distance.”

Had the protesters been permitted their plea, there would have been no need for tear gas, pepper spray, water cannon and harsh prison treatment of the jailed 900, disciplinary measures that befit criminals, not the unarmed protesting in despair. The street demonstrations would have taken place, but would have simply remained noisily colourful, while an undistracted media might have given more attention to the issues they raised, not just the official ones.

“Human rights cannot be traded,” the Human Rights Caucus asserted more bluntly, “Developing countries are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and providing adequate health care for their people. Access to adequate food, health and education are all human rights and must not become bargaining chips in a power game between unequal players.”

The Caucus drew the attention of WTO chief Pascal Lamy to a statement endorsed by 150 organizations from all over the world, released earlier on International Human Rights Day. It underlined the primacy of human rights over trade, and demanded action to maintain things that way. Anticipating criticism and resistance, Lamy was quick to adopt NGO language. “The WTO is heading for trouble if it ignores the link between trade and human rights,” he said His words. It rang hollow, and thereafter he made himself scarce to media attention.

The “development round” turned out to be a misnomer. Indeed, the delegates discussed everything but development. The numbers that the EU and US crunched were global averages that did not reflect ground realities. International activist NGOs had summed up in advance that “No deal is better than a bad deal”.

Seminar after seminar agreed that far from helping governments to protect their citizens, the WTO agreement increasingly squeezed the policy space they needed to implement human rights obligations without which development was not possible. Not surprisingly, GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access) came under particular attack.

Representatives of the European Farmers’ Coordination, the National Family Farm Coalition USA, the National Farmers Union Canada, as well as La Via Campesina representing the peasants of Latin America and poorer countries, denounced negotiators’ proposals. “TNCs are reaping record profits enabled through a flawed subsidy system which has stolen the ability to earn a living from farming,” their statement complained, “We are producing more and more and getting less and less.” Most significantly, a spokesman of the US National Family Farm Coalition warned other countries not to believe US promises to significantly cut subsidies. “The trade representative does not make agricultural policy in the US — Congress does. Bush’s own party Congressmen have publicly said they would oppose large subsidy cuts. — The farm and rural economy in the US could collapse if there are no price floors and supply management tools to replace subsidies.”

Many South governments continue to portray the vague, jargon-heavy declaration towards postponement of a final agreement as cause for hope. Grassroots opponents gearing up to make their governments face reality and responsibility instead wonder whether the next meeting will allow people’s voices in.