From: Sean Gabb <cea01sig@gold.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:47:40 +0800
To: Alan Horowitz <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960219203150.24154F-100000@scorpio.gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960220000606.29900A-100000@scorpio.gold.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I did say I wouldn't send this review.  But having broken purdah once 
already this evening, I see no harm in doing so again.

Sean Gabb.

This article was published in Free Life, No. 20, August 1994.

       _The Status of Women in Islam_
             Dr Jamal A. Badawi
 Islamic Propagation Centre International (UK),
     Birmingham, no date, 28 pp, Pounds 1.05
                  (No ISBN)


I have  among my books  various works  by Hewlett Johnson,  the
"red Dean  of Canterbury", published  in the  1940s.  In  their
gushing, literal  acceptance  of every  Soviet  lie, they  read
oddly like  one of  Peter Simple's  parodies.  Was  this man  a
fool?   Was he a  villain?   Was he something of  both?  I have
never bothered  checking.   All  I can  say is  that his  works
remain  a good  example  of how  a  thoroughly evil  system  of
thought and  government can be  portrayed with  some persuasive
force as its exact opposite.

Reading Dr Badawi's pamphlet puts me strongly in  mind of these
works.  Of course,  I should never dream of  calling its author
a villain or exactly a fool.  I have no doubt that he  believes
every word  he has written, or  that he has some  understanding
of the  matters here discussed.  Even so, he does put forward a
point of view that is supported neither by a candid reading  of
the sacred  texts to which he appeals, nor by the most fleeting
glance at  any of  the societies,  now or  ever existent,  that
have taken these texts at all seriously.

Dr Badawi begins:

     The accusation that Islam oppresses women  is nothing
     new   but  a  perpetuation   of  the   centuries  old
     deliberate  distortion and  misrepresentation of  the
     Western world. (p.5)

He concludes, _inter alia_:

     It   is  impossible   for  anyone   to  justify   any
     mistreatment of women  by any decree of rule embodied
     in the Islamic Law, nor could anyone  dare to cancel,
     reduce,  or  distort the  clear-cut  legal  rights of
     women given in Islamic Law.  (p.23)

Taken in  their  ordinary, natural  meaning,  these claims  are
false, and are easily demonstrated to be false.

Let  us first  examine Dr  Badawi's use  of  the term  "Islamic
Law".   This  is not, as  some of his readers  might suppose, a
single,  unambiguous body of law - such as  can be found in the
_Code Napoleon_, or even, if with considerable training, in the
English common  law. It is  derived from  many sources.   First
there  is the Koran, which is a long  and not always clear text
allegedly  dictated  to  Mohammed  by  the  Archangel  Gabriel.
Second there are the _hadith_, which are the  traditional stories
of what  Mohammed said  and did  on various  occasions.   Since
there  are  nearly   two  million  of  these,  and  they  often
contradict one  another, there has been  much room for  dispute
as to their collective meaning.  Third,  there is the _ijima_, or
the  consensus of opinion among learned Moslems.  Fourth, there
is _qiyas_,  this being  a  process  of analogical  reasoning  by
which,  in  the absence  of any  other rule,  a case  is  to be
decided in a manner consistent with the existing body of law.

This aside,  Islam has over  the centuries   divided into  many
sects,  each with  its own  doctrinal emphases  and accretions.
It is therefore  quite impossible - except on the  most obvious
sectarian  grounds  - to  claim  the  existence of  any  single
Islamic  Law, or  any "clear-cut  legal rights"  held under it.
This allows  Dr Badawi to  sweep aside  many objections to  his
argument based on actual practice in Islamic societies.   Or so
it  would  were  he  only  to  admit  the  existence  of  these
practices.   He  says nothing  of female  circumcision, or  the
selling  of  brides, or  the  power  of life  and  death  often
possessed -  and often  exercised -  by Moslem  men over  their
womenfolk.   He does, however, allude  to them in the  expected
manner:

     It is... a  fact that  during the  downward cycle  of
     Islamic  Civilisation, [Islamic]  teachings were  not
     adhered to by many people who profess  to be Muslims.
     (p.23)

Yet  even  if  we follow  Dr  Badawi's  advice,  to  "make  any
original   and  unbiased   study  of   the  sources   of  these
teachings", we find  much that falls short of what  is normally
meant by  equality -  and much  that is  at least  inconsistent
with his claims.

Take,  for  example, marriage.    Here,  Dr Badawi  contradicts
himself.  He claims that husbands and wives  "have equal rights
and claims  on one another". (p.16)   He immediately adds  that
husbands have  the  exclusive  "responsibility" of  leadership.
His  biological  justification for  this  is  irrelevant -  and
would  remain so  were  it  true.   An equality  of  rights and
claims, plus  leadership!  There  is a  twisting of words  that
Hewlett Johnson himself might not have dared make so crudely.

Turning  to divorce,  Dr Badawi  makes no  explicit claim,  but
uses a  form of words that implies an equality of rights.  This
is   not  an   equality  recognised   by  any   Islamic  jurist
uninfluenced by  Western legal concepts.   The  general outline
of  Islamic divorce law -  an outline more or  less accepted by
all jurists  before this century -  was summarised thus by  the
Privy Council in 1861:

     It appears that by the  Mohammedan law divorce may be
     made in either of two forms:  _Talak_ or _Khoola_.

     A divorce by  _Talak_ is the mere arbitrary act  of the
     husband, who  may  repudiate  his  wife  at  his  own
     pleasure.  But if he adopts that course  he is liable
     to  repay her  dowry, or _dyn-mohr_, and,  as it seems,
     to give up any jewels  or paraphernalia belonging  to
     her.

     A divorce  by _Khoola_ is a  divorce with the  consent,
     and at the instance, of the wife, in  which she gives
     or  agrees to give a consideration to the husband for
     her release  from the marriage tie.   In such a  case
     the terms of the bargain  are a matter of arrangement
     between the  husband and wife, and  the wife may,  as
     the  consideration, release  her _dyn-mohr_  and  other
     rights, or make any other  agreement for the  benefit
     of the husband.^1 

A  man can  divorce his wife  at any time, without  consent.  A
woman  must negotiate  and then  often buy  her  way out  of an
unsuitable marriage.  Again, some equality!^2 

But Dr Badawi goes  further.  He appeals to  the Koran.   This,
he says, provides

     clear cut evidence  that woman is  completely equated
     with man in the  sight of God in terms of  her rights
     and responsibilities. (p.13)

I have  not space to  quote his  appeals to  the Koran on  this
point:   my readers  may find  them in  chapters 74:38,  3:195,
4:124, 2:36, 7:24-24,  and 20:121.  Anyone who reads  them will
find nothing  of any  substance.   I will instead  make my  own
appeal, quoting chapter 24:31:

     And  say  to the  believing  women  that they  should
     lower their gaze and guard  their modesty; that  they
     should  not display their beauty and ornaments except
     what  (must  ordinarily) appear  thereof;  that  they
     should  draw their  veils over  their bosoms  and not
     display their beauty except to their  husbands, their
     fathers, their  husbands' fathers, their sons,  their
     husbands'  sons,  their brothers  or their  brothers'
     sons, or their sisters'  sons, or their women, or the
     slaves  whom  their  right  hands  possess,  or  male
     servants free  of any  physical needs (ie,  eunuchs),
     or small children  who have no sense of the  shame of
     sex; and  that they should  not strike  their feet in
     order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.^3 

Let us  ignore  that if  this  is the  direct Word  of God,  it
sanctions slavery  and involuntary castration.  I will only say
that it has been used, together  with other verses of the  same
kind, to justify  at least the economic oppression of  women in
traditional  Islamic  societies.     It  limits  the  range  of
employments open  to them  - partly  by imposing  a dress  code
incompatible  with many  occupations, and  partly by forbidding
contact with any man not related to them.

Turning to  formal equality before  the law, take chapter 4:15-
16:

     If any  of your  women are guilty  of lewdness,  take
     the  evidence  of  four  (reliable)  witnesses   from
     amongst  you against  them; and  if they  do testify,
     confine them to  houses until death do claim them, or
     God ordain for them some (other) way.

     If two men  among you are  guilty of lewdness, punish
     them  both.   If they  repent  and amend,  leave them
     alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

The  commentary here  leaves it  open whether  "lewdness" means
simple   fornication  or  homosexual  intercourse.     But  the
procedural  meaning  is   plain.    Men   can  get   away  with
repentance:   women are shut away  for life unless God  himself
comes down to say otherwise.

There is much more that  I could say.   A reading of the  Koran
is most enlightening -  though not in any sense that  Dr Badawi
might hope.  But  I have said enough.   Under Islam, women  are
most  emphatically  not  equal  to  men.   Certainly,  men  are
repeatedly encouraged  to treat  women with more  consideration
than seems to have been usual in Arabia  before Mohammed became
its ruler.  But this consideration falls short  of the equality
that Dr Badawi insists is the case.

In passing, I  will draw attention to Dr Badawi's  ignorance of
Western history and culture.  He claims. for example, that

     In England over  nine million women were burned alive
     in the 16th century. (p.5)

In reply,  I quote from  a letter  to Dr  Badawi written by  my
friend Judith Hatton:

     The total population  of Britain (not England  alone)
     was  2.5  million in  1500, and  about  5  million in
     1650.  Parish records show that there  was an average
     annual  mortality  rate  of  55,000, which  of course
     includes men,  women  and children.    To reach  your
     figure 90 thousand women alone would  have had to  be
     executed  annually,  without  consideration   of  any
     normal deaths.

That, I think, answers this claim.  Let us move to another:

     Even  in  modern times,  and  in  the most  developed
     countries,  it  is  rare  to  find  a  woman  in  the
     position of  a head of  state acting  as more than  a
     figurehead....  (p.22)

What about  Mary I and  Elizabeth I of  England?  Catherine  de
Medici  of France?   Christina  of Sweden?    Maria Theresa  of
Austria?   Anne and  Catherine of  Russia?   What of  all those
other European women  who enjoyed something like supreme power,
though only  informally?  And, against  this, how many  Islamic
countries  have  been  ruled  by  a Queen,  or  have  tolerated
anything approaching "petticoat"  government?   The only  Queen
who  immediately comes  to  mind as  the  ruler of  an  Islamic
country was Queen Victoria, Empress of India!

Again, take this:

     In the 17th century, the clergy in  Rome decided that
     women  had  no soul  and  would  therefore not  enter
     paradise.

But this is  a claim too laughable to  merit reply.  I only ask
Dr Badawi to produce a source to justify  it.  I am in no hurry
to receive  it, though:  let  him first become better  informed
about his own religion before he starts investigating another.

Now,  I suppose  I  should conclude  with a  general  statement
about Islam.  If  my tone in the above  may sound contemptuous,
it is not because I hold  Islam in contempt or fear.   I do not
share the view  of the remaining  Cold War cranks  in the  Tory
Party  that it is  the Next Great Enemy  of Apple Pie that must
be beaten down by  the same means that kept  so many people  in
agreeable jobs before  1989.  It is not a  necessarily barbaric
religion.   It enjoins many things  that are of enduring  value
and prohibits  or discourages many  things that  are bad.   The
Old Testament has  texts quite as savage  as those to be  found
in  the  Koran; and  both Judaism  and Christianity  have their
grim old men with beards who mutter these  texts whenever there
is  someone else  around trying  to have  fun  or do  something
generous.   Nevertheless, in Islam,  the old  men are still  in
charge.  That is the problem.

I dislike Dr Badawi's pamphlet and everything else  that I have
read  produced by  the IPCI.    But I  am  glad  that they  are
produced  in English  and  made  so freely  available  to  non-
believers.   Here is an  invitation to debate.   By  joining in
that  debate, and  winning it,  we  can do  far more  than  any
number  of  Gulf   War  massacres  to  bring  on  the  internal
reformation that  Islam so plainly  needs before  it can  stand
usefully beside the two other great monotheistic religions.

*Marian Halcombe*

Notes

1.   _Moonshee  Buzul-ul  Raheem  v  Luteefut-oon-Nissa_  (1861),
cited  in Asaf A.A.  Fyzee, _Outlines  of Muhammedan Law_, Oxford
University Press,  New Delhi, 1974,  p. 164.   The practice  of
the authorities in British India was to  let each group, so far
as  possible, live  under its  own customary or  religious law.
In deciding this case, the judges at first  instance would have
taken the  advice  of the  most  authoritative Islamic  jurists
available.  That  this summary is  a good  one is indicated  by
its having been cited by Mr Fyzee.

2.   Divorce  by  _Talak_   is  still  allowed  in  some  Islamic
jurisdictions, and there have been Moslem  men settled in  this
country who have tried  - of course, without success  - to have
it recognised in the English courts.  I will not  cite the many
cases:   my readers may  find them discussed at  some length in
David  Pearl, _A  Textbook of  Muslim  Law_ (2nd  edition), Croom
Helm, London, 1987.

3.   I  quote  here  and  below   from  the  translation   with
commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, also published by the IPCI.


*Editor's note*

Though priced at   1.05, Dr Badawi's  pamphlet and  many others
like  it  are  available  free  of  charge   from  the  Islamic
Propagation  Centre International  (UK)  at 481  Coventry Road,
Birmingham, B10 0JS, Tel: 021 773 0137, fax:  021 766 8577.

The translation of the Koran used by Mrs  Halcombe is available
from  the same  address  at  the greatly  subsidised  price  of
Pounds 7.50, plus  Pounds 3.50 p&p.

Any  reply   to  Mrs  Halcombe's   review  will   be  seriously
considered  for publication.   It  should address  her specific
points and not be too long.

*Note for this uploading

A copy of this review was sent to the IPCI in August 1994.  I received
a brief acknowledgment, but am still waiting for any kind of refutation.