A few introductory
remarks would be necessary for appreciating the measures taken by Islam for
ameliorating the condition of women. I
would better give a few extract from Al Mar’ato fil-Qur’an by the
learned Arab scholar “Abbas Mahmud al-Aqqad who has made an in-depth study
of the subject.
Describing the position of women under pre-Islamic religions and
societies, he writes:
“The Laws of Manu(1) accorded no personality to woman
save that as a dependent of her father or husband and in the event of the
death of both, as a client of her son.
On the death of all the three she has to be content herself, as a
hunger-on of one of the near relations of her husband.
She could never become self-dependent.
The injustice to which she was subjected, even more than in her
economic affairs, was in the case of her separation from her husband; for,
she was required to die with her dead husband on the funeral pyre.
This was an age old custom followed from the ancient days of
Brahmanic civilization to the seventeenth century when it was given up owing
to rising public opinion against it.
“The code of Hammurabi(2)
treated woman as a
pet. The status of women under
this code is illustrated by one of its provisions which said that if a man
killed the daughter of another man, he had to hand over his own daughter to
the aggrieved person who might kill her in retribution, keep her as a
slave-girl or reprieve the punishment, but she was more often slain to meet
the demand of the law.
“In ancient Greece woman neither enjoyed any freedom nor had any
right. She was made to
live in big houses away from the main thoroughfares, having few windows and
a guard posted at the door. With little attention paid to the housewives and
mistresses, soirees with dancing-girls and women of easy virtue had become a
common pastime. Women were not
allowed to join men in social gatherings:
they never joined the study circles of the philosophers.
Harlots, divorced women and courtesan slave-girls enjoyed a greater
title to fame and respect than the married women.
“Aristotle censured Spartans for being kind to their women-folk and
giving them right of inheritance, divorce and self-dependence and considered
these as the reasons for the downfall of Sparta.
“The Romans of the old treated woman much like the same as the
ancient Hindus for she was to remain under the wardship of her father,
husband or the son. During the
bloom of their cultural glory they held the view that neither a woman could
be unshackled nor her neck could be freed as the saying by Cato(3)
goes: Magnum
exvitur servitus mulie Brio.
The
Roman woman got freedom from the restrictions imposed on her only after the
Roman slaves wrested their freedom through insurrection.”
After describing the status of women
in the ancient Egypt, Mahmud ‘Aqqad says:
“Egyptian civilization and
its social laws had already run its course before the advent of Islam.
With the downfall of Roman civilization in the Middle East and as a
reaction to its luxuriousness and dissipation a strong trend disdaining the
worldly life had set in Egypt. The life itself and the association with one’s kith and kin
had lost attraction while a general inclination towards monasticism had made
the flesh and women appear as sinful.
“This tenor of the Middle Ages had so undermined the
position of women that the ecclesiastics continued to discuss the nature of
women in all seriousness up to the fifteenth century.
The questions whether women had a soul or was a body without soul and
whether she was eligible to salvation or doomed to damnation were vigorously
debated in the synod of Macon.(4)
The majority view was that she did not possess the soul fit for
salvation, the only exception being Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.
“This tendency of the later Roman period was
responsible for the degradation of women in the subsequent phase of Egyptian
civilization. Actually, the
barbarism of the Romans was responsible for giving rise to monasticism and
other-worldliness in Egyptian society.
A large number of people came to regard the secluded life under
religious vows dedicated to prayer, contemplation and development of
spiritual faculties as a means to attaining nearness to God and saving
themselves from the machinations of the Devil (of which women was the
greatest inducement).
“A number of Western orientalists contend that the
Islamic
Shari’ah is
based on the Hebrew Law but this view is confuted by a comparison of the
status enjoyed by the women under the Pentateuch and the Qur’an.
A daughter had no right to inheritance, under the Pentateuch, from
her father if the deceased had a male child.
“It was an obligation regulating the gifts that the
property owned by anyone should not pass on to another family on his death.
“The Jewish Laws relating to inheritance provided
that so long as long as there was a male child of a deceased person, his
daughter would not be entitled to inheritance, and the daughter inheriting
from the deceased father would not be allowed to marry into another tribe.
Similarly, she could not transfer inherited property to another
tribe. This law has been
repeated at several placed in the Torah.
“Now we turn the country where the Qur’anic
teachings first came to be preached. One
should not expect that the women were treated more favourably in the ancient
Arabia. In fact, the treatment
meted out to her in the Arabian Peninsula was worse than in any other
country of the world. If she
enjoyed any respect in a particular case, it was because she happened to be
the daughter of the chief of a powerful tribe or the mother of an
illustrious son. She was thus
not entitled to any respect or honour by virtue of belonging to the fair
sex. She was
no doubt protected by the father, husband, brother or son but like
any other material possession of a man.
It was against the tribal sentiment of honour that anybody should lay
his hands on anything under the protection of another man and this included
one’s horses, herds, wells and pastures.
The women were likewise inherited by the heirs of the deceased person
like his property. Woman in Arabia enjoyed no social status, rather, the
shame attached to her made the father bury alive his own daughter.
The moneys spent on the upkeep of the daughter was deemed as a burden
although a Bedouin was not miser in spending on his goods and chattels or a
slave-girl. Even those who
allowed their daughters to remain alive considered her no more than an
exchangeable goods which could be inherited by the deceased’s heir or sold
or pawned for payment of a loan or interest. She was spared these humiliations only if she belonged
to a powerful tribe prepared to extend its protection to her.”(5)
