Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

A R C H I V E S

Women's obedience and men's distinction / Employin

Madina Archives


Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Women's obedience and men's distinction / Employin
amatullah
05/08/03 at 16:18:13
Women's obedience and men's distinction / Employing more women in
business.

Adil Salahi, Saudi Arabia.
[ Questions and comments can be e-mailed to Br. Salahi at:
islam@arabnews.com ]


Women's obedience and men's distinction:
Q. I have been researching the status of women in Islam, but I found
certain things that I cannot understand. For example, I read a Hadith
to
the effect that if women were allowed to prostrate for anyone, they
would do so before their husbands. Obedience by a wife is stressed very
strongly. That should be all right if a husband is reasonable in his
demands. But many are the husbands that are unreasonable, and with the
requirement of obedience women can be in a very difficult position.
Moreover, a Qur’anic verse speaks of the steps to be taken before
divorce, and it includes beating one’s wife. I am told that the word
“beat” is an incorrect translation. Yet there is a Qur’anic statement
that gives husbands a step over women in their status. That gives me
the
impression that the relationship between man and wife in Islam is
similar to one between a man and his pet. It is easy to make a pet’s
life very difficult without ever incurring a sin. Please explain.

Shahnaz Mukarram, Dhahran

A. It is easy to misinterpret a verse in the Qur’an or a statement by
the Prophet if one takes it in isolation, without relating it to other
verses and statements on the same subject. Hence it is imperative when
we deal with religious text to understand the basic principles that
Islam emphasizes and to relate such text to principles applicable to
its
subject matter. In the relationship between man and woman, the
overriding principle is that stated by God in Verse 228 of Surah 2:
“Women shall, in all fairness, enjoy rights equal to those exercised
against them.” As this statement occurs in the context of divorce, it
is
applicable to all matrimonial relations. The rights of both husband and
wife are equal. There is no doubt about this. The practice of the
Prophet and his guidance confirm this.

I realize that the next statement in the same verse speaks of men
having
an advantage over women, but this advantage is simply the one which
gives a man the right to end the marital relationship unilaterally,
while a woman needs to prove a case of harm or seek khala’ in order to
get her marriage terminated.

In the light of the above statement, and looking at the way God makes
His address in the Qur’an, scholars have concluded that whenever an
address is made by the Prophet or in the Qur’an, it applies to men and
women equally. Excepted from that are the cases where women are
addressed specifically as women. Thus, the address in the Qur’an or
Hadith applies either to women on their own, when the case is clearly
so, or to men and women equally. This means that the order to men to
take good care of women, implies that women should also take good care
of men. This is a pervasive rule that applies in all situations except
where the context is clear that it applies to women only. There is no
question that the relationship is one of a master and a pet. It is one
between equals, governed by rights specified by God and elaborated by
His messenger.

Now if we look at the examples the reader has pointed out, we begin
with
the Hadith about prostration. It is clearly misquoted by the reader,
who
makes it a special case for women, while it is not. The Hadith runs as
follows: “Qais ibn Saad (a companion of the Prophet) says: I went to
Al-Heerah (the capital of Al-Manathirah puppet state in Iraq) where I
saw people prostrating before the governor. I thought that God’s
messenger had a greater claim to people’s prostration. When I met him I
reported this and told him, ‘You have a better claim that we should
prostrate ourselves to you.’ He said: ‘Do not do that. Had I thought of
ordering anyone to prostrate before another, I would have ordered women
to prostrate before their husbands, because of the rights they have
against them’.” (Related by Abu Dawood).

When you look at the Hadith in full, you realize that it is a case of
prohibition rather than encouragement. It is not permissible for anyone
to prostrate himself before another, no matter what position that
person
occupies. In his own case, the Prophet ordered his companions not to do
that. He then added that had such prostration ever been possible, then
women might have been ordered to do it for their husbands. But the
Prophet did not order that. Hence, it is not right. The construction of
the sentence makes it clear that the whole idea is unacceptable. It is
stated in this way only to emphasize the matrimonial rights. According
to Islam, however, these are equal between man and wife. Hence, we
should never belittle women’s rights in Islam.

Another misconception by the reader is that concerned with beating and
divorce. The Qur’anic verse that mentions this speaks of women who are
rebellious. Three methods of dealing with them are specified in a
particular order, one after the other. No one may resort to the second
step before the first, or to the third before the second. The verse may
be rendered in translation as follows: “As for those women whose
ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them first, then leave them
alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do
not
seek to harm them.” (4: 34)

In his translation of the Qur’an, Muhammad Asad writes a footnote in
comment on this verse. He explains the case admirably well. It is
useful
to quote him in full: “It is evident from many authentic traditions
that
the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one’s wife,
and said on more than one occasion, ‘Could any of you beat his wife as
he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening’?” (Related
by Al-Bukhari and Muslim). According to another tradition, he forbade
the beating of any woman with the words, “Never beat God’s
handmaidens.”
(Related by Abu Dawood, Nassaie, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn
Hibban, and Hakim).

When the above Qur’anic verse authorizing the beating of a refractory
wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said, “I wanted one
thing, but God has willed another thing. What God has willed must be
best.” With all this he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the
Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be
resorted to only if the wife “has become guilty, in an obvious manner,
of immoral conduct,” and that it should be done “in such a way as not
to
cause pain.”

Authentic traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmithi, Abu
Dawood, Nassaie and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these traditions, all
the
authorities stress that this “beating”, if resorted to at all, should
be
more or less symbolic — “with a toothbrush, or some such thing”, or
even
with “a folded handkerchief.” Some of the great Muslim scholar, e.g.
Shafie, are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and
should preferably be avoided. They justify this opinion by the
Prophet’s
personal feelings with regard to this problem. I will quote just one
Hadith in support of what Asad says. Muawiyah Al-Qoshairi reports, “I
asked God’s messenger about our women and what we may do and what we
may
not do with them. He said, ‘You may come into her when you wish. You
must feed her when you eat and clothe her when you buy clothes. You
must
not insult her, nor may you hit her’.” (Related by Abu Dawood).

The relationship between man and wife in Islam is not one of obedience
in a military sense, as some people would have us understand. It is a
caring and loving relationship in which both try their best to take
good
care of each other. The reader speaks of unreasonable husbands who
demand obedience. This is not what is required of a woman. She is to
obey her husband in what is fair and reasonable. He may not demand what
is neither fair nor reasonable.

The reader asks about slave girls and the Islamic view of those. This
is
irrelevant in our modern days, when slavery has been eradicated, by the
grace of God. We need not go into details here. Space does not allow
for
one thing. For another, it is irrelevant. I will only say that with
regard to slavery Islam had a system which ensured the best treatment
of
slaves and the eradication of slavery in a short period of time.


Employing more women in business:
Q. I am starting a business in my home country in which I am investing
my life savings. However, due to various factors I feel that my
business
will not be successful unless I employ more women than men. My business
includes some glamorous aspects, but on these the business utilizes
only
non-Muslim women employees. May I ask whether there are any Islamic
restrictions on employing women with men, considering that no woman has
a mahram on the premises.

M.W. Khan, Riyadh

A. I admit that I am surprised at the question. Wherever the reader
goes, he will find that all places with mixed staff do not consider it
necessary to have members of the families of their women employees on
site. Had it been necessary, there would be great difficulties in
managing any business or public service. Imagine the difficulties that
would need to be addressed if, in every school, women teachers needed
to
have a man of their family present at school, simply because some of
the
school staff are men. Had this been necessary many schools would not
have been able to function. Besides, if we extend this principle to its
logical conclusions, women would need a mahram to accompany them
wherever they want to go, including a supermarket, a health clinic,
etc.

A woman needs a companion who is a mahram, i.e. her husband or a close
relative whom she is not allowed to marry, such as her father or
brother, only when she travels and the journey takes more than 24
hours.
Scholars say that when a woman needs to travel and she cannot be
accompanied by a mahram, then she may travel with “safe companionship”,
which means a trustworthy group of travelers who include some women.
The
mahram as a companion does not have much of a role when it comes to
day-to-day activities. Women can go about their business in the normal
way as men, as long as they do not have to be in a compromising
position
with men who are not their close relatives.

This means that a working woman goes about her job in the same way as a
man. If she has men as colleagues, then she should not be in a closed
room with one man who is a stranger to her. If her working area is a
“public” place, which means that people can come in and go out without
restriction, then she may receive any member of the public at her work
station. If the place has several men and women in attendance, then
that
is a perfectly acceptable environment.

All the above assumes that Islamic standards of propriety are observed.
Thus, Muslim women who are employed should go to work wearing clothes
that are acceptable from the Islamic point of view. They must not
behave
in a way that suggests that they are going to a party, wearing heavy
makeup and adorning eye-catching attires.

What worries me in the reader’s question is what he mentions about
glamorous aspects to his business, which he does not allow Muslim women
to undertake. He does not tell us what he means by glamour, but it is
clear that the glamour to which he refers is unacceptable from the
Islamic point of view. Otherwise why would he not allow Muslim women to
undertake it? If so, he should be very careful. He should inquire
whether engaging in such a business is permissible in Islam or not. If
it cannot be sanctioned under Islam, then he is well advised to abandon
that line of business and seek some other line which carries no such
doubtful aspects. [7/6/2001]

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=758

Re: Women's obedience and men's distinction / Empl
a_Silver_Rose
05/09/03 at 00:57:14
[slm]
This was quite interesting. Jazak Allahu Kayron for posting it.

[quote]A woman needs a companion who is a mahram, i.e. her husband or a close
relative whom she is not allowed to marry, such as her father or
brother, only when she travels and the journey takes more than 24  
hours.
Scholars say that when a woman needs to travel and she cannot be
accompanied by a mahram, then she may travel with“safe companionship”,
which means a trustworthy group of travelers who include some women.  
[/quote]
wow I think many people dont know this. I traveled alone for the first and only time 2yrs ago . My destination was Pakistan (thats the only place am aloud to go alone) which took me about 28 hours I think. I wonder if I can do that again now. Although I believe there is a very valid reason for this considering what happened and stories I have heard.

May Allah (swt) protect us all. Ameen.

07/03/03 at 17:29:14
a_Silver_Rose
Re: Women's obedience and men's distinction / Empl
Dawn
05/09/03 at 07:38:23
[slm]

Hmm, I thought there were a number of sahih hadith which discussed this -- some saying one day (ex. Bukhari 20:194), some saying two days (ex. Muslim 7:3099), some saying three days (ex. Bukhari 20:192 and 193), and some not stipulating a length of time (ex. Bukhari 29:085 and 52:250).  I then concluded that those jurists who favored the 24 hour scenario were ruling on the "safe" side (as one day is certainly shorter than three days) and that those who favored the never-going-out-without-a-mahrem were being even more cautious.  Was this conclusion reasonable, or am I missing something here?
Re: Women's obedience and men's distinction / Empl
a_Silver_Rose
05/09/03 at 13:49:26
[slm]
oh ok jazak Allahu Kair Dawn...I guess there are lots of people in airport and if you think you can be safe you can go. Since some say 2-3 days.


Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
A R C H I V E S

Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.
The rest © Jannah.Org