In a world where women are routinely the object of violence and amidst the rekindled debate in UK following the latest kidnapping and presumed murder of Sarah Everard, one thing you can be sure the debate will not cover is the treatment of women under Sharia law.
What’s wrong with Sharia? Where to start. Here are 9 ways it degrades women just for starters…
1). A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a dirt field.
Surah 2:223:
“Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like” . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.
. . . “If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.” (Bukhari)
2). Husbands are a degree above their wives.
Surah 2:228:
. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)
Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.
The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.” (Bukhari)
Another hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.
I heard the Prophet saying. “Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.” (Bukhari Book 56 Number 74)
3). A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.
Surah 4:11:
“The share of the male shall be twice that of a female”. . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)
4). A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.
Surah 2:282:
“And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.” (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).
It seems that the foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may “forget” something. This goes to the nature of womankind. Philosophers teach us that one of the main differences between animals and humans lies in humankind’s rationality. But this verse implies that a woman’s mind is weak.
This hadith removes any ambiguity about women’s abilities in Surah 2:282:
“The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Bukhari)
5). A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.
Surah 2:230:
“And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. (In that case) there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . .” (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)
The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why should it be necessary to have the intervening steps of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?
6) Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners.
Surah 4:24:
“And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war)” . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).
Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No sex or marriage should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. But Islam traffics in injustice too often.
Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless and vulnerable condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless — the Quran says so.
7). A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.
Surah 4:3:
“And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.” (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)
The clause “marry those who have fallen in your possession” means slave-girls who were captured after a war. Men may “marry” them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave-girls as they wanted.
Maududi paraphrases the verse: “If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities” (See Surah 4:24).
8). A Muslim polygamist may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.
Surah 4:129:
“It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, (in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law) do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense.” (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)
Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383-84, note 161). He writes:
“Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill-natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.”
9). Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.
Surah 65:1 & 4:
65:1 “O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . [4] And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.” (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617)
Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:
“Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.” (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13.)
■ ISLAM TREATS WOMEN WORSE THAN SLAVES
Islam doesn’t treat women like slaves. It’s a lot worse than that. A slave knows his or her position. A woman in Islam is duped into a role of oppression. Every woman in Islam is heir to the destruction of female emancipation and power.
We see this history repeated over and over again. Long before the Bamiyan Buddhas fell to the Taliban and a millennia before ISIS “destroyed thousand years of culture almost overnight” in Iraq, Muhammad killed the goddesses of pagan Arabia: al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.
Islam’s first verses that honored the goddess were quickly branded as “satanic verses” as prophet Muhammad in more or less words said “the devil made me do it.” And with that he broke the only powerful female archetypes in early Islam, pushing the new faith far from its spiritual predecessors. Islam was no longer tethered to the sacred feminine, nor was it tethered to the Jewish and Christian tradition of womanhood. The ‘satanic verses’ instead anchored an entire new civilization in the broken idea that female power and authority are abominations — a belief that is largely still held today.
At the root of Islamic supremacism is the lie that Islam is a feminist religion. Its propagandists will point to Khadija, the prophet’s first wife. They’ll point to Aisha, the prophet’s youngest wife and devout companion. They’ll point to Fatimah, the prophet’s youngest daughter. None of these women stand in equity with the men in their lives. Each is little more than a side kick, a supporting actor, a camera woman whose existence shines a brighter spotlight on the real star of the show. Their standing in society as equals was destroyed with the goddesses. There was no space for such women in a society hand crafted for men seeking domination. Those who briefly stood self-possessed, like Khadija, had their story pivot and their shadow fade to make room for the dominant narrative: the prophet.
Modern day Islamists propagandists will say that through Islam, Muhammad gave women the right to marriage contracts, property, inheritance, and so forth. Yes, he did. It was a progressive first step for that society, but without something more spiritual, these were purely transactional exchanges that reduced the rights of women to a business dealing, and even then in the eyes of the law they’re not fully equal eg inheritance law.
It does not allow for seeing a woman. She has to be literally covered up. The freedom’s recognized within the sphere of civil society turned women’s rights and place in society into a commodity to be bargained for and maintained. Without a full framework of understanding the feminine, it is not possible to develop a society that embraces the gifts women carry — often because that society has disembodied women from those gifts. Women under Islam have been disconnected from the lineage of Biblical patriarchal ancestry, from the history of women who saw, bore, created, fought, loved, lived.
As daughters of the monotheistic tradition, Muslim women don’t inherit the Jewish belief that wives complete the faith of their husbands. They don’t grow up being taught that men sit on the throne, but women are the power behind the throne. Their bodies are still seen through the periscope of reproduction, service, and control. The Islam of men tells them that men can alternate between wives, that heaven is ripe with virgins. It doesn’t speak to female sexuality in the way the Judeo-Christian traditions do.
Both faiths see sex as contained, for example, but only on Biblical principles is the marriage bed an altar that involves the whole being in a oneness of flesh, that reflects the Oneness of a multi-personal God.
The Bible does not present sex as a mere physical act, solely for procreation, but an encounter that involves the whole being. The word used in the Torah for sex between husband and wife comes from the root ‘yod-dalet-ayin” meaning ‘knowledge.’ This indicates sex is more than physical encounter, but involves a thinking act that requires responsibility and commitment. Under God’s ideal of marriage sexual fulfillment is a woman’s right, along with food and shelter.
Islam offers none of this. It has no equal guarantee for women because it doesn’t see women in any framework beyond the clinical approach of a business dealing. Islamist supremacists, for example, tote Islam’s polygamy laws as a solution to cope with infidelity. The supremacists who support this view as a win for civilization don’t see the scarcity mindset these sorts of ‘arguments’ arise from.
The arguments are not much better when they come from women in Islam. Annexed from the memory of what it means to be a woman, women often tote the rights and protections a woman has in an Islamic marriage.
“A woman has a right to her own earnings. She has a right to be provided for…” such mantra Muslim women grow up hearing. But a woman has a right to know what it means to be a woman. She has a right to understand what that means outside of the context of basic survival needs that depends on relational stability while forfeiting her relationship with herself.
But it’s not just alienation from Biblical marriage principles, Islam also alienates itself from Christianity to which it claims to be heir. Islam pushes away from the Christian message of forgiveness and divine love for all, the latter being a strong theme in Jewish tradition of Kabbalah not found anywhere in Islam.
In the spirit of absolute love, would Christ have allowed slavery in Islam, or would He have destroyed the marketplace of slaves as angrily as He did the marketplace in his own time? Would Christ have said faith allowed men to possess slave women to do with as they want? Slavery justified in faith as an economic necessity is only possible in a system that divorces womanhood from the spirituality womanhood carries — a right inherent to every woman and not just Muslim women. Yet, if Islam failed Muslim women what hope was there for any other woman.
Nowhere is distortion of the feminine more prevalent in what Islam became than in Islamic marriages. At the end of the day, even a slave knows she’s a slave. But a woman married in Islam has been sold a lie.
The Islamic world of men says to it’s women “Welcome, but leave who you are at the door.”
■ Summary
The only God ordained model for marriage is the one found in God’s Word. Anything that departs from, waters down or contradicts the principle of one man one woman or sanctions multiple marriages, not to mention the possession and rape of sex slaves, cannot by definition be from God.
Monogamy reflects the monotheistic God of the Bible. It also reflects the plurality of Oneness of our Triune God.
Since the Quran sanctions polygamy on this basis alone we can prove that the Quran is not divinely authored. But there is worse than polygamy in Islam. Women are treated like property and marriages are transactional. Their rights are inferior to that of men. There is no basis of love or fidelity in Islam. Men may take sex slaves in addition to multiple wives. Rape is permitted. Women have no right to even refuse sex. A holy God who gave us the divinely ordained institution of marriage and where even to look upon another woman lustfully is a sin, would NEVER sanction such behaviour. Adultery is idolatry. Islam promotes both.
Islam does not honour women and this discrimination is in built to Sharia Law.
Sharia Law perpetuates a culture of violence inequality and degradation against women, especially within the family and has spilled into violence against children.
# Comment [thanks Sandy Ward]:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, misogynist and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not terribly unfair to the woman? This issue is actually addressed in two passages, both of which are below:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”
Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.”
Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father’s permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can’t opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn’t the right woman for him!).
Also note that “he may not divorce her all his days” – this initially doesn’t seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word “uncleanness” refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.
But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.
The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 – the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.
Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.
Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
Recommended Resources: Deuteronomy, Holman Old Testament Commentary by Doug McIntosh