The
veil and the male elite:
a feminist interpretation of women's rights in Islam
Fatima Mernissi
1991
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
p. vii-viii
…To defend the violation of women's rights it is necessary to go back into the
shadows of the past. This is what those people, East or West, who would deny
Muslim women's claim to democracy are trying to do. They camouflage their
self-interest by proclaiming that we can have either Islam or democracy, but
never both together.
Let leave the international scene and go into the dark back streets of Medina.
Why is it that we find some Muslim men saying that women in Muslim states cannot
be granted full enjoyment of human rights? What grounds do they have for such a
claim? None-they are simply betting on our ignorance of the past, for their
argument can never convince anyone with an elementary understanding of Islam's
history. Any man who believes that a Muslim woman who fights for her dignity and
right to citizenship excludes herself necessarily from the umma and is
brainwashed victim of Western propaganda is a man who misunderstands his own
religious heritage, his own cultural identity. …We Muslim women can walk into
the modern world with pride, knowing that the quest for dignity, democracy, and
human rights, for full participation in the political and social affairs of our
country, stems from no imported Western values, but is a true part of the Muslim
tradition.
p. 20
…What characterizes the modern West is its success in masking its fascination
with death with a fascination with the future, thus freeing its creative
energies. But modern Muslims, under the spell of who knows what deep-seated
pain, prefer to die before even living, be it only for a few decades. The
difference between the West and us is in the way we consume death, the past.
Westerns make it into a last course, and we try to make it the main dish.
Westerners consume the past as a hobby, as a pastime, as a rest from the stress
of the present. We persist in making it a profession, a vocation, an outlook. By
invoking our ancestors at every turn we live the present as an interlude in
which we are little involved. At the extreme, the present is a distressing
contretemps to us.
p. 46
…Claiming to have been close to the prophet or to have been given some
privilege or other by him was used to mask huge economic and political stakes.
The source of the invention of Hadith-manipulation par excellence of the sacred
text-is to be found in the very nature of a political system which never managed
to transcend its elitist origins and seek pragmatic ways of mobilizing the whole
population to participate in the choice of the head of state.
p. 54-55
…first time since the death of the Prophet that the Muslim found themselves on
opposite sides in a conflict. His was situation that Muhammad had described as
the worst possible for Islam: fitna, civil war, which turned the weapons of the
Muslims inward instead of directing them, as Allah wished, outward, in order to
conquer and dominate the world. …It was year 36 of the Hejira (AD 656), and
public opinion was divided: should one obey an "unjust" caliph (who
did not punish the killers of 'Uthman), or should one rebel against him and
support 'A'isha, even if that rebellion led to civil disorder?
For those who held the first opinion, the gravest danger that the Muslim nation
could face was not that of being ruled by an unjust leader, but rather of
falling into civil war. Let us not forget that the work Islam means submission.
If the leader was challenged, the fundamental principle of Islam as order was in
danger. The others thought that the lack of justice in the Muslim chief od state
was more serious than civil war. A Muslim must not turn his back when he sees
his leader commit injustices and reprehensible acts (al-munkar): "The
Prophet said: 'If people see al-munkar and they do not try to remedy it, they
incur divine punishment,'"…This was the argument of the group who
assassinated Anwar Sadat of Egypt, and is representative of the very prolific
literature of the Muslim extremists of today.
p. 67-9
…Muhammad, who was laying the groundwork for an Arab nationalist ideology,
could only assert himself in one of two ways-either with the support of the
Jewish community or by combating it if it discredited and denigrated him….
What the prophet did was to "nationalize," to "Arabicize"
the Judeo-Christian heritage, as if in our day there should emerge an Arab
prophet who would claim Einstein, Marx, and Freud not only as ancestors of
modern Arab Muslims, but as the heritage that only a Muslim society is capable
of making bear fruit, the only one able to develop their scientific message.
The Jew saw the prophet as an imposter who stole their prophets and
"indigenized" them to his own advantage. It was in their interest to
rid of the Prophet for two reasons. Not only was he sapping the source of their
prestige-access to the sacred, to Heaven, to the book revealed by God, to the
prophets-but he was also using their own prophets, their own legends, their own
knowledge, to constitute himself as a force that would dominate the world. ….he
decided to declare total war to them. What might Islam have become if the Jews
had given their support to Muhammad? It is possible that it would never have
seen the light of day, that it might have become a somewhat deviant Judaism, a
rather specialized sect in the vast Mediterranean area which has already seen so
many.
Nevertheless, we should remember that of the prophet succeeded in his mission,
it was because the Arab terrain was ripe for an ideological bouleversement.
Arabia was experiencing a very serious ideological crisis which reflected a deep
economic and social crisis, and which explained the foothold held by the
Christians and Jews in the area. The Arabs admired them as communities that had
obtained what they lacked: a sense of identity, a feeling of belonging to a
superior civilization, the feeling of being a chosen people with whom God
carried on a dialogue. This is the reason that in the Koran there is so much
emphasis on the fact that the book revealed by God is Arab.
…
…turn away from Jerusalem and instead pray in the direction of Mecca.
Jerusalem had to be abandoned as a symbol; it represented a greater danger than
Mecca. And this choice of the Ka'ba as the direction that organizes the sacred
and structures space made Islam what it has become: both a religion that is
embedded in the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition and a separate religion
which poses itself as a rival power and contends for universal dominion…
p. 81
…All the monotheistic religions are shot trough by the conflict between the
divine and the feminine, but none more so than Islam, which has opted for the
occultation of the feminine, at least symbolically, by trying to veil it, to
hide it, to mask it. … This almost phobic attitude toward women is all the
more surprising since we have seen that the prophet has encouraged his adherents
to renounce it as representative of the jahiliyya and its superstitions. …Is
it possible that jihab, the attempt to veil women, that is claimed today to be
basic to Muslim identity, is nothing but the expression of the persistence of
the pre-Islamic mentality, the jihiliyya mentality that islam was supposed to
annihilate?
What does the jihab really represent in the early Muslim context?...When was it
inaugurated, for whom, and why?
p. 97
For some theologians the jihab is a punishment. … 'God, if Thou must torture
me with something, don't torture me with the humiliation of the jihab.'
So it is strange indeed to observe the modern course of this concept, which from
the beginning had such a strongly negative connotation in the Koran. …
Many new editions of books on women, Islam, and the veil have recently been
published by religious authorities who are "concerned for the future of
Islam," books that explain in their introductions that their aim is to
"save Muslim society from the danger represented by change."
p. 99
This look back into history, this necessity for us to investigate the jihab from
its beginnings through its interpretation in the centuries that followed, will
help us to understand its resurgence at the end of the twentieth century, when
Muslims in search of identity put the accent on the confinement of women as a
solution for a pressing crisis. Protecting women from change by veiling them and
shutting them out of the world has echoes of closing the community to protect it
from the west.
p. 119-121
…the women apparently hoped to see things change with the new God. They were
so successful that a sura bears their name, sura 4, An-Nisa ("Women"),
containing the new laws on inheritance, which deprived men of their privileges.
Not only would a woman no longer be "inhered" like camels and palm
trees, but she would herself inherit. She would enter into competition with men
for the sharing of fortunes….This little verse had the effect of a bombshell
among the male population of Medina, who found themselves for the first time in
direct, personal conflict with the Muslim God. Before this verse, only men were
assured the right of inheritance in Arabia, and women were usually part of the
inherited goods….
As far as men were concerned, the new regulations on inheritance tampered with
matters in which Islam should not intervene-their relations with women. Accoding
to many of the Companions, Islam ought to change everything except their
privileges with regard to women…
In pre-Islamic tradition women had no assured right to inheritance, which in any
case was a matter between men…..A wife, at a time of inheritance, seemed to be
nothing but an object to be claimed by male heirs…
The new laws threw all this into question. Islam affirmed the idea of the
individual as a subject, a free will always present in the world...The men
opposed these laws, understanding that if they let them come into effect,
Muhammad and his God would soon support other demands by women, especially the
right to make war and the right to booty.
p. 125
…The conflict between God and the Muslim Companions was coming into the open…
The Prophet was not intimidated by them. He maintained his position: God had
informed them of His decision on this subject. They had only to comply. However,
confronted with laws they did not like, they tried to distort them through the
device of interpretation. They tried to manipulate the texts in such a way as to
maintain their privileges.
…
…men continued to try to suppress the egalitarian dimension of Islam. These
men, who came to Islam to enrich themselves and have a better life, were caught
by surprise by this dimension of the new religion. They suddenly found
themselves stripped of their most personal privileges. And, unlike slavery that
affected only the wealthy, the change of the status of women affected them all.
No man was spared, whatever his calss or means. However, a verse that uses a
somewhat ambiguous word, al-sufaha (the foolish), was going to serve them as a
springboard for nullifying the new laws.
This verse says: "Give not unto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping of
their) wealth, which Allah hath given you to maintain." This was the verse
they were waiting for: since the foolish are excluded, then women are the
foolish-it was very simple. "The sufaha are women and children, some people
say, and both of them must be excluded from inheritance." …If they
insisted strongly enough that the concept of sufaha included women, then all
males would be happy, and the Muslim God and his prophet could keep their
harebrained laws about inheritance. Men came to a happy understanding among
themselves.
p. 128-9
There are no theoretical schemas that define the principles of Islam as a
philosophy, as a vision of civilization. Because of their wish to master their
subjectivity, the fuqaha (religious scholars) were reduced to simply
accumulating various cases and opinions concerning them. Since they gave to each
person the right to have an opinion, the end result is a literature of
juxtapositions of opinions. The religious literature wanted to be scientific,
and it was. But it was an empirical science, in which each author limited
himself to a work of collation without drawing any synthesis that would aid us
in "distinguishing" the essential from the secondary. The imam humbly
effaces himself before the facts. And in doing this, he opens the way to
manipulation through interpretations, as the debate around the word sufaha
clearly shows. When it is a controversial verse that is at stake, everyone is
going to choose and support the opinion that suits him best among the
multiplicity of those that the fiqh accumulates.
We can imagine, or dream, that an elaboration of a system of fundamental
principles would probably have allowed Islam as a civilization of the written
word, to come logically to a sort of declaration of human rights, similar to the
grand principles of the Universal declaration of Human Rights, a universal
declaration that still today is challenged as being alien to our culture and
imported from the West. The position of modern Islam as a society on the
questions of women and slavery is a good illustration of that utter neglect of
principles, that inability of political Islam as a practice (as opposed to an
ideal) to enforce equality in daily social life as an endogenous highly valued
characteristic. The paradoxical result is that, despite Islam's opposition to
slavery in principle, it only disappeared from the Muslim countries under
pressure from and intervention by the colonial powers.
It is in order to evaluate the depth of the contemporary Muslims' amnesia, which
sees equality of the sexes as an alien phenomenon, that we must return to
Medina, to its narrow streets where the debate on equality of the sexes raged
and where the men were obliged to discuss it, but refused to accept it although
Allah and His Prophet demanded it. As today, the men professed Islam, but openly
rejected it when it supported equality between the sexes.
p. 134
...over and above the equality craved by women, there were crucial economic
interests at stake.
Confronted with this problem of survival for the community, most of the women
did not take the necessary political stand. The only one who did was Umm Salama,
who defended the right to go to war, not to gain wealth, but to have the
privilege of "sacrificing oneself fro God" and the Prophet's cause.
The others declared: "It is too bad that we are not men; if we were, we
could go to war and gain wealth like them." Lacking Umm Salama's political
sagacity, they were not able to hide their material interests under the
trappings of holy war, and this false step was fatal to them.
p. 138-9
…Without military success there would be no Islam. The Prophet's margin for
maneuver in a city dominated by a war economy was very limited.
Applying the principle of social equality added the risk of even more trouble.
It destabilized the family by giving women the right as believers to claim
equality, since henceforth piety would be the only criterion for ranking in the
hierarchy…Giving women the right to paradise posed fewer problems than giving
them the right to inheritance and booty, which greatly increased the sacrifices
that the male believer had to make to Allah. If men had need of God, God also
had need of men.
Faced with this difficult choice-equality of the sexes or the survival of
Islam-the genius of Muhammad and the greatness of his God shows in the fact that
at least at the beginning of the seventh century the question was posed and the
community was pushed to reflect about it. It is a debate that fifteen centuries
later politicians are calling alien to the culture, alien to the Sunna, the
prophet's tradition.
p. 142
Although 'Umar had many marvelous qualities, the Muslim chronicles, who recorded
everything about a historical personality, including faults, also depicted his
fiery, violent character with women…
So it was not just by chance that he became the spokesman for the men's
resistance to the prophet's egalitarian project. A man of exceptional charisma,
he supported the maintenance of the status quo in the domain of the family. For
him, as for the many Companions that he represented, the changes that Islam was
introducing should be limited to public life and spiritual life. Private life
should remain under the rule of pre-Islamic customs, customs that Muhammad and
his God rejected and condemned henceforth as out of step with the new system of
Muslim values, which emphasized the equality of all, including equality of the
sexes. The men were prepared to accept Islam as a revolution in relations in
public life, an overturning of political and economic hierarchies, but they did
not want Islam to change anything concerning relations between sexes. In family
matters and relations with women, they felt at ease with the pre-Islamic
traditions.
p. 146-7
…it was no longer women who initiated the debate, but men. While chatting with
each other and exchanging confidences about different sexual positions, they
stumbled onto the subject of sodomy…
The particularly revealing debate concerning this verse allows us to grasp the
depth of the problem that this book seeks to make clear: the use of the sacred
by men to legitimize certain privileges, whether they be of a political or a
sexual nature...Three centuries later….the debate was still going! And still
today they are arguing bout whether a Muslim does or does not have the right to
sodomize his wife! What seems important to me is that a debate in Islamic
religious literature is never closed. Each generation takes it up where the
previous one left it to discuss it again, although there has been no useful
progress. Why? In brief, because a civilization that rules the life of millions
of individuals must evolve general principles without letting itself be sucked
into casuistry and empiricism. Al-Tabari, as brilliant as he was, did not help
his contemporaries…He did not try to evolve principles that codified what is
permitted and what is forbidden in the heterosexual sex act by recalling the
equality of the partners as believers. He did not go beyond the incident to
arrive at the principle that the sex act depends on two distinct free wills;
that it is a relationship between two believers with needs and desires that do
not necessarily coincide. It was this timidity on the part of the imam toward
the necessity to evolve principles that makes the verses so malleable, and makes
opportunism in their interpretation a structural, almost institutional, feature
of Islam.
p. 15 0
During the prophet's lifetime, the opposition to his egalitarian project-that
all people be free-was strong and persistent. After a generation, the son of a
freedman did not seem worthy of military command. Asserting the equality of
slaves, as in the case of women, threatened enormous economic interests…The
new religion sought to intervene in both these instances….However, despite all
the declarations of principle clearly defined in the revealed verses and despite
the example set by the prophet, Muslim society remained a slave society for
centuries and only renounced it under pressure from the colonial powers in the
twentieth century. It is important to follow this history of slavery in order to
understand the attitude toward women that has persisted right up until the
present day.