Re-Examining the Concept of Womens Rights Dr.

Hanaan Balala

It is assumed, if not hoped, that womens rights in all its varieties, trends, and organizations aims for one outcome; the empowerment of women. look like What, however, does the empowerment of women mean?; what does it when embodied in a woman or in women?; Is there a standard empowered woman? and can one empower another who is not psychologically empowered through external measures?; Just as Light is not born of darkness, so is empowerment not born of disempowerment. A state, any state, only replicate itself. By establishing a long-standing movement of empowering women, we are affirming the disempowered status of not only those women experiencing a lack of self-autonomy, but all women in general. This perhaps explains why is it that throughout recent history there has been a movement to empower women with little fundamental effect on women in general. We are, after all, one human body. No part of a body or entity can ail without affecting the whole accordingly just as an aching tooth or throbbing toe destroys the peace of a physical body. Consider, why is it that there has never been a mens rights movement though men too have been enslaved and suffered disempowerment in the past? In fact, some men today experience as disempowered a status as their

female counterparts. Empowerment, like Love, Joy or Freedom, is not gender selective. Empowerment is a state of being; not a set of action or a prescribed way of life. In the absence of a state of empowerment, one experiences disempowerment just as darkness is simply the absence of Light. Disempowerment is not actually a real state but the absence of a human beings natural state of being; the absence of Freedom and wholeness (whol-e-ness/holiness). All humans are created equal and empowered. Thus, women are innately empowered and are entitled to all the attending rights due to a Free human being. To lament the disempowered state of women is akin to lamenting the inferiority of women to men. Women are not inferior to men nor disempowered in state, though they may be subjected to customs and circumstances that rob them of their equality and God-given rights just as slaves were once robbed of their equality and God-given rights by those who assumed power over others in various parts of the world. Both disempowerment and inferiority/superiority are illusory and false conditions resulting from a denial of the inherent state of the human being/s in question. The Creator, whatever the name chosen to address All that Is, abides beyond the duality of the fragmented mind of 3 dimension. It is for this reason that the Quran addresses women in the same terms as men and where male references are used, this is understood to include the

female.

It

is

only

when

the

question

was

put

to

Muhammad directly regarding the male phraseology of the Quran that deliberate adjustments were made in the language of revelation to indicate that no gender bias is intended. To illustrate using contextual examples from the 6th/7th Century, the Quran prohibits the prevalent practice of female infanticide simply by questioning the sin for which the female infant was killed for? This established a girlchilds right to Life equal to the male child. Likewise, Muhammad established elaborate laws of inheritance, marriage, divorce, spousal maintenance and individual autonomy of women in all aspects of life with equal status and deservability before God though their cultural roles may vary. The rights of women enforced by Muhammad through the Quran and his exemplary life catered for the welfare of its focus group in exactly the same way that rights of orphans did or rights of marriage partners provided for the welfare of those it addressed. Just as the rights of orphans and marriage spouses do not dictate details of dress code and specificity of conduct beyond what is contextually honourable and kind (maruf and maslah), so do the rights of women indicate accordingly. What is emphasized beyond the contextual specificity is the inherently wholesome (whole-sum) and deserving state of the group or individuals in question. Their welfare is underpinned by the principles that govern human existence on Earth:

Dignity, Equality, Freedom, Fraternity and Justice. The principles of Life do not distinguish between religious affiliation, male and female, orphans and parented children, married and unmarried, felon or free; young or old and is in every way blind. What these group specific set of rights do is simply apply the overarching principle of Oneness to the specific segment within humanity so as to maintain balance at all times between the different segments of society. On this basis does the Quran illustrate the lives and examples of women in the history of Humanity so as to give indication of the worthiness and equality of women in the sight of the Creator. It indicates specifically that all Humanity is created from a female consciousness for whom a partner was created and from their union many males and females were birthed (AlNisaa: 1). Likewise does the life of Muhammad indicate the empowered state of women through the example of his relationships with his wives, daughters and women generally as well as the individual autonomy and freedom they enjoyed with him much to the consternation of his male companions. In this light, I ask, did Muhammad intend the creation of distinction between man and woman for purposes of denigration and discrimination that they have come to be used for? I think not, but Ill leave each reader to ponder the issue for ones self.

Islam is just an Arabic word denoting the natural state of all life. It has been associated with a religious belief and institution that has marred its essence by covering it in an illusory form prone to rigidity. Islam as a state of being has existed from the time of Adam (the mythical first man) to Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and the various Masters that walked this Earth to date regardless of whether they are mentioned in the Quran. Just as the bearer of the message changed with the time and context of deliverance so too did the form of the message change. The Principles of Islam, however, remain the same; Principles of Oneness, Peace, Justice, Equality, Compassion and Welfare of all Humans Islam, like Life, is inclusive in that as it establishes itself, it takes the society as it finds it and evolves there from towards growth and expansion. Muhammad found Arabia in a state of deep ignorance and blatant imbalance in many aspects, not only gender relations. Matters of marriage, inheritance and the treatment of orphans, were especially unsatisfactory and out of kilter with the natural state of human justice and equality. Their effects were experienced first hand by Muhammad who suffered their injustice. Muhammads task therefore, as a messenger of Islam was that of returning his society to a state of balance commencing from the disarrayed state he found it in. Balance is the hallmark of Islam and each messenger, through out history, came to restore balance to humanity who had veered off the path of Oneness.

The imbalanced state of society in 6th/7th Century AD Arabia as Muhammad found it was that of male dominance and assumed superiority. Men ruled over women; female infanticide was a regular and accepted practice; women were not individuals but appendages to the male guardian/masters they attached to; chattels that could be traded as their guardians/masters pleased and the mistreatment of women a general custom. Even the aristocratic (few) women lived a comfortable but invisible existence. This troubled Muhammad and he was inspired to restore women to a position of equanimity with their male counter-parts. Empowerment thus is simply the restoration of balance where imbalance has set in between two equal and opposite sides of one indivisible whole. Empowerment is not for purposes of drawing and maintaining distinction between two sides so as to prove the worth of one against the other. It is establishes all human beings, male and female, young and old of any race or colour, as equal in being/essence though they differ in form. Empowerment is thus not for purposes of securing the value of or right to equality. Empowerment is simply for the purposes of returning that which is otherwise out of balance, back to natural balance so that wholeness may be restored. Thus, the value of empowerment is not to decry

differences between the genders by allocating rights to one against the other but rather empowerment bridges the divide and distinctions between the two by restoring

the rights of one with (not against) the other. Through this Oneness may be restored by elevating one part of the whole unit to a place of equality with the other part of that whole. Man and woman are two sides of ONE whole a wealth of indications in the Quran point to this truth. In creating and establishing rules and rights pertaining to women, Muhammad was acting from the premise of the culture and context of 6th/7th Century Arabia as he found it, with the aim of elevating women, within that culture and context, to a position of equanimity with men so as to restore balance to society. He did not intend through his inspired vision and creation to provide an exhaustive and fixed list of rights and rules pertaining to women so as to lock them eternally within a grid that would eventually hold them prisoners to an outdated and alien culture (equally for those who today are Arab or not). If indeed this was his intention, it contradicts and conflicts with his every action and demonstrative example, let alone the spirit and principles of Islam as expressed in the Quran and therein exemplified in multiple personalities both male and female even before the advent of Muhammad. It also behooves explanation as to why a fluid and eternal philosophy that indicates its facilitation of change and leaps of evolution would lock one half of humanity to rules within a specific context and culture forever thus reducing women to deadened regurgitates of a culture and context long expired? Equally, why would an eternal philosophy stating as fact the equality between all beings and

stressing the indivisible oneness of male and female as two sides that form a whole, allow one gender to evolve in mode and manner within respective contexts yet lock the other part of the indivisible whole to death through compliance to an extinct context? Surely, humanity would not be so foolish as to apply rules appropriate to the context of dessert Arabia to the winter colds of Europe? No sane person would wear a winter coat in the heat of the dessert, how then are the garments appropriate to 7th Century AD Arabia appropriate to the global context today? How then, are we so foolish to apply gender rules that were suitable to 6th/7th Century desert Arabia to our reality today? A full body cloak is appropriate to the dessert when venturing outside the home to shield ones self from the winds and sand. The veil over the face keeps sand out of ones eyes and face. Even men often wrap their head cloths over their faces to shield themselves such. A cloak was also useful as a protective covering early in the mornings or late in the evenings when the day-time temperatures dropped to leave a chill. In addition, the cloak provided a modicum of decency to ease the resistance against womens increased public participation. Women began being seen and heard in society against customary conventions of a patriarchal society and the suggestions on decent dressing was to protect women from attacks against their person and cater to their welfare; they were not intended as an indication of inferiority or a means of subjugation. These

are merely inventions of human society after the demise of Muhammad. Only the Quran read within historical context and the life of Muhammad is authoritative in this matter. The challenge faced by those working towards womens rights today is in trying - struggling to fit the rules set out in the Quran and by Muhammad for 6th/7th Century context Arabia to the 21st Century. Rules, however, change; it is the underlying principle that endure. It is essential, therefore, to acknowledge that the purpose of empowerment within the context of the Quran is to restore Balance to Humanity. With this in mind, humanity can begin to identify, with open hearts and minds, the areas where gender imbalance exists, and there from begin to create and apply measures to restore balance and bridge existing divides so as to restore wholeness/oneness to the human race in the area of gender relations. With this approach, fresh applications of the timeless principles may emerge. An approach that is not attached to the past nor reminiscent of the nostalgic glory of a civilization long gone. After all, Islam, at all times, was and is profoundly appropriate and practical to the present context and time. This is why given the fundamental and common principles between the messengers of Islam, each sought fresh and practical application of the same principles to their unique cultures and contexts. This is why though Muhammad was urged to follow in the

footsteps of Abraham, he originated fresh solutions and practical applications suitable to every sphere and aspect of life, except where the existing practice was in sync with the philosophy of Oneness and Equanimity. Equanimity does not mean sameness; each gender has natural and appropriate tendencies that must be respected for purposes of maintaining natures balance yet without detracting from their equal status in the scheme of life. In this light, we may find, just as Jesus message came to liberate the people from much of the obsolete practices set by Moses, and Muhammads message liberated the people of Arabia from the obsolete practices of the Jewish and Christian traditions, so too does the origination of empowering rules within our present context liberate us from much of the obsolete rules of 6th/7th Century Arabia that was developed after Muhammads demise. That this is valid is indicated expressly in the Quran in Al-Baqara: 133-134 & 141. Those who argue for womens rights today by insisting on the rules and practices established in the culture and context of 6th-7th Century Arabia have little understanding of the essence and spirit of Islam. It is akin to insisting on the right to ride camels on the free ways of Arabia, England or California because the Prophet and his wives so rode camels. Camels were merely a functional form of transportation best suited to the context and culture of their time. Today we drive cars and fly in airplanes and

indeed had Muhammad the opportunity to travel in cars and airplanes he would have; his biographies attest to his progressive character and he is reported to having urged the seeking of knowledge even in the land of China. From knowledge springs new ideas and ways of Life. Indeed, the inventions that proliferated the Arab world, and that are today celebrated as part of the golden age of the Islamic Civilisation, stem from the study of Greek works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as of other philosophers and disciplines. These celebrated inventors and scholars of the 8-11th century understood profoundly the principles and philosophy of Islam to be a Philosophy of Oneness that builds bridges between apparently disparate peoples or disciplines and is concerned primarily with that which brings welfare to each individual and thus to the whole. The inherently time and context appropriateness of Islam made manifest in human life is expressly indicated in the Quran Al-Anam:9 Why is it, then, that a Philosophy that is so open to change and so fluid in its form has been reduced to such rigid form today? The answer lies in the human agency that interprets and applies the Divine message to reflect their psyche and perceptions. It may lie in the fact that we seem to have lost sight and understanding of the principles and purpose of the message of Muhammad. We have fixated upon and are fascinated by an adherence to form whilst forgetting the spirit and purpose of the message. Yet our insistence

on form is the much rebuked idol/image worship that the Quran repeatedly condemns of people. Idols and images are not just those carved out of stone or wood but those fixed form of the mind erected in nostalgia of the past or in attachment to forms that we insist on preserving so as to furnish us with false psychological security based on images of the past. Moreover, some of the mental images of the past that we cling to were never part of the practice of Muhammad and those that were, neither the Quran nor Muhammad intended to be set in stone as eternal forms. Only the Principles of Oneness through a relinquishment of the illusory state of separation sustained by the ego identity and a return to wholeness is eternal; all else is fluid. The forms of the past, just like idols and images, serve us no good nor do they stand the test of time. Truth is not a product of the past, which is dead to the present. Instead, Truth is ever fresh and appropriate to the present moment. It changes to suit the present time and context of application. The hallmark of Truth is its appropriate and wise application to the present context; otherwise it has no value to Life.