The Publisher’s Note

Islam is the philosophy of life, ideal of life, and guide to life shown by Almighty Allah for people of all ages. The welfare and salvation of humanity lie in Islam. Therefore, a society and civilization built on the Islamic ideal of life are, in reality, a sound society and a proper civilization. The societies and civilizations that have arisen throughout the ages and in various countries on the basis of man-made ideologies outside the Islamic philosophy of life have never become welfare-oriented societies and civilizations. Rather, they have become civilizations opposed to nature, distorted, and destructive of humanity.

The civilizations of Ad, Thamud, Lot, and Pharaoh in prehistoric times; the Greek, Roman, Persian, and Indian civilizations of the historical age; and the materialistic Western civilization of the present age are all examples of distorted civilizations that turn away from God and oppose humanity.

One of the greatest elements of a distorted and corrupt civilization is nudity and shamelessness, which dishonors the chastity of women. This is essentially a satanic act. In the name of equality between men and women, modern materialistic civilization seeks to draw women into every sphere of men’s activity and thereby remove them from their proper responsibilities of motherhood; at the same time, by providing opportunities for unrestricted interaction between men and women, it seeks to turn the whole of human civilization into a corrupt and bestial civilization. In this book, Islam and the Modern Muslim Woman, the learned authoress has presented, with very fine arguments and information, how the Muslim world is falling prey to this corrupt Western feminist propaganda and destroying its own civilization.

The emerging man of letters, Mr. Mofachchhel Ahmad, has translated the book in highly lucid and moving language, thereby demonstrating his ability. May Almighty Allah accept this modest effort of his. Ameen!

Md. Nesar Uddin Masud

451, Mir Hajirbagh

Dhaka-1204

A Brief Introduction to the Authoress

Maryam Jameela was born in New York in 1934 into an American Jewish family of German descent. She was raised in Westchester, New York’s wealthiest and most densely populated suburb, and received a completely secular education in public schools. From childhood, she became somewhat different from the other students, developing a love of learning and becoming an exceptionally avid reader. She was never seen without a book in her hands. The scope of her reading soon extended far beyond the school curriculum. When she passed adolescence and entered youth, she became highly emotional and began to disdain all the frivolities of youth—something not usually seen in an attractive and beautiful young woman. The subjects that most attracted her thirst for knowledge were religion, philosophy, history, anthropology, sociology, and biology. The public libraries of her school and neighborhood, and finally the New York Public Library, became her second home.

After graduating from secondary school, she enrolled in the Liberal Arts program at New York University in 1952. During her university studies, she became seriously ill in 1953. Her illness grew worse day by day, and within two years she had to leave the university without obtaining a diploma. She remained under treatment in government and private hospitals for two years (1957–59). After returning home from the hospital, she discovered herself to be a writer. The Qur’an translated by Marmaduke Pickthall and two books by Allama Muhammad Asad, Road to Macca and Islam at the Cross Roads, kindled in her heart a fervent interest in Islam. Through correspondence with several prominent contemporary Muslim thinkers from Muslim countries and friendly relations with several new Muslims living in New York, she embraced Islam at the hands of Sheikh Daoud Ahmad Faisal at the New York Brooklyn Islamic Mission. Mr. Faisal then changed her name from Margaret Marcus to Maryam Jameela.

After that, she began extensive correspondence with Islamic thinkers throughout the world and continued reading all Islamic books and periodicals published in English. Through this study, she became acquainted with the thought of Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi and began corresponding with him regularly from 1960. In the fragrant spring of 1962, Maulana Maududi invited Maryam Jameela to move to Pakistan and live in Lahore as a member of his own family. Maryam Jameela gladly accepted his invitation. One year after moving to Pakistan, she married Mr. Muhammad Yusuf Khan, a full-time worker of Jamaat-e-Islami. Subsequently, this Yusuf Khan took responsibility for publishing all her books. Maryam Jameela is the mother of four children. She lived in a large family with her husband’s first wife, all her husband’s children, and his mahram relatives. Even after marriage, she continued her literary work and all her intellectual endeavors with great success. In fact, her important writings were completed during pregnancy and in the intervals between pregnancies. She observes purdah very strictly.

Her boundless hatred of atheism and materialism, with all their forms in the present and the past, and her uninterrupted curiosity about abstract and transcendent ideas ultimately led her to embrace Islam, the pure and straight path that fulfilled all the demands of her intellect and emotions. Islam gave her proper guidance concerning life in this world and the Hereafter.

——————

The Translator’s Note

The foundation of civilization is built upon the position, responsibilities, and mutual relations of women and men in society. Whenever a society has removed women from their proper position, that society has suffered collapse.

Under the influence of modern materialistic Western civilization, Muslim society has moved far away from the position that Islam prescribed for women and men in society. In this booklet, Islam and the Muslim Women Today, the renowned Islamic thinker, accomplished writer, and new Muslim, Begum Maryam Jameela, born into a wealthy Jewish family in New York, America—the playground of modern corrupt civilization—has portrayed very skillfully both this distortion of Muslim society and the history of the hollowness of Western civilization.

Although women and men belong to the same human species, there is a great difference between them physically and mentally. Physically, men are strong, virile, highly courageous, creative, industrious, and able to endure hardship. Women are weak, frail, and unable to cope with heavy labor and adversity. Because of regular menstrual bleeding, pregnancy, and the grave responsibility of raising children, they are also unsuited to work outside the home.

Mentally, men are resolute, confident, and patient; women are emotional, tender-hearted, and modest.

The female body contains a predominance of magnetic and alkaline substances, while the male body is dominated by electrical and acidic substances. Thus, just as there is mutual attraction between magnets and electricity and between acids and alkalis, there is naturally a powerful biological attraction between women and men. Just as the radiance of a woman’s body enchants a man, the electrical glow of a man’s body fascinates a woman. Therefore, to protect people from unrestricted sexual relations and preserve woman’s distinctiveness, Islam has prescribed purdah—the command to conceal the beauty of one’s body and face from unrelated men.

Islam has designated a woman’s real sphere of activity as her home, her husband’s household. From her own position, a woman can be educated, virtuous, learned, benevolent toward society, devoted to public service, and an organizer. The golden age of Islam bears outstanding testimony to this.

Just as a man will exercise authority outside the home through his natural abilities and professional competence, a woman, in accordance with the demands of her nature, will perform half the work of human civilization from behind the veil.

The materialistic Western civilization that Islam’s proper assignment of responsibilities to women according to their nature had enabled to build a prosperous society has played the alluring tune called “women’s freedom” in order to destroy it. These advocates of women’s liberation have freed women from their natural modesty and veiling and brought them alongside men into every sphere of work. As a result, all human relationships defined by sex are gradually disappearing. Homes and families are breaking apart; the relationships between fathers and sons and between mothers and daughters are coming undone.

For more than a century and a half, the Muslim world was ruled by the West.

During this period, Western education, philosophy, culture, law, and way of life penetrated Muslim society. Although Muslim countries later gained geographical independence, to this day they have been unable to free themselves from the noose of servitude to the superpowers.

Politically, most Muslim countries are still governed by Western-minded children of the West who bear Muslim names, and these new rulers depend on their Western masters in almost every matter of society and the state. Consequently, none of Islam’s values is safe in their hands. Through them, the Western powers remain constantly engaged in attempts to transform Muslim society. Among their countless conspiracies are conversion through NGO and missionary activities in the name of helping the needy, and social distortion through the use of financial assistance as a weapon in governing states. The resolutions of the recent World Conferences on Women held in Cairo and Beijing are outstanding examples of this.

Western politics, economics, education, philosophy, culture, law, and judicial systems are fully established in Muslim countries. Only the family system remains somewhat Islamic. They are determined to destroy this as well. Their objective is to replace matters such as purdah and dress, relations between women and men, polygamy, laws concerning marriage and divorce, the rights of parents, the rights of husbands and wives, and inheritance law with a completely Western legal system. The authoress, who has exceptional experience of Western and Islamic civilization, has presented this very subject beautifully in the booklet.

I have undertaken to render this book into Bengali in order to convey its message to conscious readers. If Bengali-speaking Muslim society—especially the women and men of the present generation who have grown up in a hostile environment—finds some guidance through this book, my labor will have been worthwhile, God willing.

Mofachchhel Ahmad

28.12.95.

The Social Responsibilities of Muslim Women

Those who believe in the superiority of the modern way of life regard Islamic values such as (1) guardianship in the marriage of daughters, (2) polygamy, (3) divorce, and (4) the institution of purdah as harmful to the social status of women.

In all the Muslim countries of the world, a movement called the “Reform Movement” is currently under way. It seeks to put regulations regarded as Islamic since the beginning of Islam in the dock and to introduce, in those areas, the regulations prevalent in non-Muslim countries.

In this article, therefore, I will describe in detail the natural superiority of Islamic teachings concerning women and the grave social harm caused by unjust treatment of them in this regard. Modern egalitarians for women consider the priority given to the opinions of parents or guardians in a Muslim girl’s choice of husband deeply regrettable, and describe it as the father’s cruel oppression of her and interference with her personal freedom. They have condemned no other Islamic regulation as severely as polygamy. They have presented it as the ultimate humiliation of Muslim womanhood and proof of arbitrary lustfulness. These “reformers” consider it a practice suitable only for the most degraded societies and claim that it can be accepted only under exceptional circumstances.

We must understand that the basis of this lamentable view held by our modernists is not found at all in the Qur’an or Hadith. It is entirely the result of their mental enslavement to Western civilization.

The reason Western society views polygamy with such intense hatred is that it is excessively influenced by an exaggerated concept of monogamy, while in that context it does not regard adultery as equally abhorrent.

It is a matter of great shame and sorrow that, in many Muslim-majority countries as well, Islamic family law has been so mutilated that under their contemporary laws the Prophet (peace be upon him), his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and other great men who practiced polygamy are deemed criminals. They have condemned Islamic law concerning divorce as harshly as polygamy. They cite the permission granted by the Shariah to a man to divorce his wife as another proof of the degradation of Muslim women. They have loudly declared that unilateral repudiation of a wife, such as divorce, is certainly an unforgivable crime, because it permits someone to abandon his wife for very minor and trivial reasons. Thus, divorce must be a punishable offense, and a person should be allowed to divorce only with court approval when some serious condition, such as adultery or incurable insanity, arises.

Where Islamic Shariah has provided an unhappy couple, unable to tolerate living together, with a beautiful and honorable solution to their problem, those “reformers” have said that even two men and women of incompatible temperaments must be forced to maintain their marriage bond.

If two men and women cannot find mutual satisfaction, no irreligious morality can compel them to love one another; therefore, they will inevitably seek love elsewhere. To escape this unbearable coexistence marked by mutual dissatisfaction, they have only one option: to induce the court to grant a divorce through lies and slander. Since these false accusations bring social disgrace upon them, the entire matter leads to their moral degradation and ruin.

A man who divorces his wife without a valid reason provable in court may be considered a bad person. But allowing a woman to enter a marriage of her choice, rather than keeping her for life amid mental torment, cannot be considered wrong by any humane standard. Nevertheless, our modern reformers have set about making laws that would keep a woman in lifelong quarrels and mental torment even in such circumstances.

Modern educated people view the system of purdah, or separation from undesirable interaction between women and men, with no less hostility. Like non-Muslims, they are determined to uncover the female body. Thus, they have arranged coeducation for women, the right to vote, employment outside the country, and full participation in all public activities.

The supreme image of this “women’s freedom” introduced by state authorities is the sight of unveiled girls marching wildly along the streets, waving banners to the national anthem; women voting alongside men in elections; women in the army dressed in male soldiers’ uniforms; women working with men in mills and factories; and judges of national beauty contests gazing at the bodies and beauty of the lovely women who appear before them, like decorated animals in a fairground gift shop.

In modern civilization, a woman’s honor and respect are measured by her participation in all men’s activities and by exposing all her beauty and charm along with it. Consequently, in that contemporary society, all activities that distinguish women and men from each other become completely confused.

Islamic teaching can in no way tolerate such misguided, sexually oriented cultural values.

Islam has not assigned women the responsibility of leadership in men’s sphere. Her responsibility is assigned to her home, her husband’s household. Her fulfillment and success are determined by her obedience and loyalty to her husband and by raising precious children. Privacy is what all Muslim women prefer, and purdah is therefore the indispensable means.

On the stage of the drama of life where men become the heroes of history, women, behind the veil, will support all their activities. Although a woman’s activities may be less exciting, they are more modest and are in no way less important for preserving the stability, development, and purity of a sound way of life.

The Responsibilities of Muslim Women as Mothers

The primary responsibility of a Muslim mother is to inspire her children according to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Most Muslim women in non-Arab areas who recite the Qur’an devoutly every morning do not know even its slightest meaning, nor do they try to learn it.

Many girls who are religiously inclined but shaped by modern education study the Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic literature. But they regard these as they would a Nobel play, or as some abstract philosophy. Their study of Islam therefore cannot restrain them even for a moment from watching filthy films, listening to obscene music, displaying gestures to the rhythm of songs, or attending social gatherings wearing immodest, body-hugging clothing.

In this regard, Muslim mothers must explain to their growing sons and daughters that what their other friends do at school and college is not actually right. Muslim women should read the Qur’an and Hadith so that their teachings may be implemented in their daily lives.

In many Muslim homes, the Qur’an is seen wrapped in beautiful silk cloth and placed on a shelf, seemingly only to gather dust. These countless unused Qur’ans cry out, “O human beings, free me from bondage, read me, and follow me.”

Mothers accustomed to reading women’s magazines easily support the intensely rebellious attitudes of their adolescent children toward the moral and religious values long established in society. They even indulge their intense attraction to foolish, detestable behavior and trivial frivolity, as well as their complete aversion to convention. These mothers think, “Atheism and materialism are a biological reality inherited by young adolescents. They will inevitably accept them as a revolutionary change. Therefore, they should simply be left to this all-pervasive inclination.”

This is entirely a deceptive statement. It can have no logic whatsoever. Rather, in most cases, it is the propaganda of the so-called progressives that has plunged them into this despair.

Because what they hear and see in the mass media and what they learn in their educational institutions bears no resemblance to the values practiced or taught in their homes, they naturally become rebellious. If these media taught the Islamic way of life instead of the Western way of life, these young men and women could become completely different in their thoughts and beliefs, feelings, and conduct. In bringing about this essential change, only educated mothers can play the principal role by exerting a profoundly effective influence over their children.

The Islamic teaching concerning purdah requires women to live in seclusion with dignity and honor, remaining in their own homes most of the time except when it is absolutely necessary to go out to meet relatives or male acquaintances. A mother can set a fine example before her growing children through the practices of her personal life. The mother who is always content to devote herself to household affairs, remaining occupied with cooking, supervision, and caring for the children, regularly offering prayers, studying the Qur’an, and engaging in other acts of worship, is able to create such a favorable Islamic environment in her family that her children will be deeply influenced by it and, as they grow older and mix with the outside environment, will not be attracted by undesirable behavior. Therefore, children should be given an Islamic education from a very early age. We learn from hadith that the children of the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him), may Allah be pleased with them, could recite the Qur’an even at the age when they were still naked.

As soon as children learn to speak, they should be taught the kalimah, as well as Islamically expressive phrases such as Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Allahu Akbar, Insha’Allah, and Masha’Allah. As soon as a child learns to stand and walk, he or she should be encouraged to practice prayer by imitating the mother. When the child reaches seven years of age, mothers should pressure the child to pray, and if the child still does not pray at ten, it should be punished. If children are taught in this way, they will become accustomed to fulfilling their duties toward the Creator and humanity long before they become mature enough to understand.

Children should be given simple, clear explanations of the importance of fulfilling these duties according to their age and intelligence. In this regard, mothers have the duty of acquainting their children with the exciting lives and works of the great Muslim personalities of the past and present, and of creating in them an intense desire to uphold those values in their own lives. When children grow somewhat older and are able to read books willingly on their own, the home environment should contain Islamic books that attract them to reading.

It is not enough merely to forbid children who have grown considerably or reached adolescence from watching dirty films in cinemas and meaningless programs on radio and television; their harmful aspects must also be explained to them. If there is a radio or television set in the home, mothers should completely prevent their children from listening to any programs other than Qur’an recitation, news bulletins, good poetry recitations, and health-education programs. Children should never be allowed to listen to sinful music, for no other program has a worse moral effect on a child’s character. If a child ever hears such bad songs from a neighbor’s radio or television and begins singing them, the mother should force the child to be silent and reprimand the child, saying that one ought to be ashamed to sing such filthy songs.

Muslim mothers should under no circumstances agree to send their children to Christian missionary schools or institutions for education. For there the boys and girls will inevitably be influenced by Christianity and Christian culture. Even in government schools, no particularly good results can be expected in moral education.

Therefore, where possible, the deficiencies of materialistic education may be compensated for by teaching children Arabic, the Qur’an, and hadith through a private tutor, or, where that is not possible, by sending them to the mosque. If she can, the mother herself may also provide this kind of education to her children.

Every mother should carefully read all the textbooks used by her children at school. She should point out to the children whatever is untrue, erroneous, or harmful in them, and explain, with conclusive evidence, the falsehood of those things.

Muslim mothers should make the home attractive within the limits of their means. Almost all homes in this country, including those of the middle class, are in many cases unclean and dirty. Many women scatter refuse on the floor, especially in the courtyard and kitchen. They have the bad habit of living amid dirt without cleaning it with their own hands. Islamic teaching certainly teaches girls cleanliness and discipline. A clean Muslim woman should never feel ashamed to sweep or clean her own house, nor is it right always to depend on servants and maids for this. If she is wealthy, she must always avoid pomp and waste and refrain from expensive household furnishings such as Western-style sofas, dressing tables, toys, and so forth. The walls of the house may be decorated with ornate calligraphy bearing verses and sayings from the Qur’an and hadith. This will both decorate the house and remind everyone that it is also a Muslim home. Pictures incompatible with Islamic teaching, or framed individual and group photographs of family members or friends, should on no account be hung in the house. Islamic teaching at least instructs a girl, for household work, in the principles of cleanliness, first aid, and the preparation of enjoyable halal food. Many Muslim women are completely ignorant about nutritional knowledge. Thus, even when plenty of necessary and beneficial food is at hand, they do not know how to feed it to their children.

An uneducated and heedless Muslim woman is wholly unable to resist the un-Islamic influences that are harming her children day and night. Only an educated, intelligent, and highly committed Muslim woman can courageously confront the unfavorable environment of the present.

—————————-

Women’s Freedom and Qasim Amin

The practices of preserving the sexual chastity of men and women, observing purdah, having girls remain at home as faithful wives, engaging women in child-rearing and household work, accepting the husband as head of the family and provider of livelihood, and granting men the right to divorce their wives and practice polygamy, among others, have been observed in Muslim society for more than thirteen hundred years, since the era of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), his Companions, and the Imams. No jurist or scholar of any madhhab ever raised any question about these matters. Everyone accepted these regulations without hesitation. Until European imperialism seized the freedom of the Muslim world, not even a nominal Muslim had the slightest courage to criticize this social position of Muslim women as prescribed by the Qur’an and Sunnah.

The name of the first nominal Muslim in history to speak against the purdah system was Qasim Amin (1865–1904). Qasim Amin was a Kurd by origin and a judge by profession. He was a disciple of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh. He spent most of his life in Cairo. While studying the Persian language, he came to believe, through the propaganda of Christian missionaries, that purdah, polygamy, and divorce were the sole causes of the backwardness of Muslim society. The more this French education offered him arguments in favor of the superiority of Western civilization, the more deeply a sense of inferiority regarding himself accumulated within him. Later he wrote, “True civilization will be based on science. Since Islam reached its perfection before the development of true science, it cannot be regarded as the ideal of civilization.” He further said that the moral foundation of Islam was weak. He said, “Muslims, even the Muslims of the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), were in no respect better than other people.” In his view, “The path to perfection and supreme excellence is science. The farther Europe advanced in science, the farther it progressed in social superiority.” He also wrote, “Europe is ahead of us in every respect. Although we take pleasure in thinking that, while Europeans are materially wealthier than we are, we are morally superior to them, this is not correct. Europeans are far more advanced than we are morally. Social morality exists among all their classes. Women’s freedom in Europe was not created by any custom or sentiment. Rather, it rests on science and morality. Therefore, it is meaningless to accept European science while leaving aside its moral aspect. These two things are inseparably related. Therefore, we should prepare to bring about change in every aspect and department of our lives.”

It was this line of thought that led Qasim Amin to begin writing, in 1901, his book opposing purdah, entitled The New Woman. In this book he portrayed Muslim family life in a very unfavorable manner. From a book entitled Childhood in the Moslem World by a Western writer named Samuel Gemmer, Qasim Amin quoted the following: “In Muslim society, the man is the woman’s absolute master. The woman is an object of his pleasure, like a toy with which he may play as he wishes. Knowledge belongs entirely to men, while woman is foolish and all ignorance is for her. The open sky and all light are for men, while all darkness and confinement are for women. The man will merely command, and the woman will silently obey. Everything belongs to the man, and the woman is only an insignificant part of all that belongs to him.” This Qasim Amin was the first nominal Muslim to advise reorganizing and rebuilding the Muslim family along Western lines. In this connection, he quoted in his book from Albert Hourani’s Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age as follows: “Look toward the Eastern countries: you will see women imprisoned in chains of slavery before men. Men are their rulers. Man is tyrannical, and as long as he remains at home he continues this tyranny. On the other hand, look toward the European countries: there every government has ensured people’s rights and individual freedom and has given women greater freedom and respect in thought and action.”

Qasim Amin further wrote in that book: “The main cause of the decline of Muslims is the destruction of social values through ignorance. This ignorance begins in the family. To improve this condition, Western education must be introduced. Through this education, woman will not only escape domestic problems but will also be able to make herself self-reliant in order to escape the hands of male oppressors. This education will free woman from the veil, seclusion, and oppression.” Qasim Amin considers women’s remaining at home harmful on the grounds that it originates from men’s distrust of women. Men do not respect women; they keep them confined to the home because they do not acknowledge women as fully human. Men deny women’s human qualities because they want only to enjoy their bodies. Qasim Amin holds the same view concerning polygamy. In his opinion, no woman can share her husband with another woman. If a man marries a second wife, it can happen only by disregarding the wishes and desires of his first wife. He also views divorce with hatred. He says that if this practice is retained, women must also be given equal rights in this matter. He expresses the opinion that there is no reason why women should not have equal rights with men in politics. However, he insists that women should receive education for a long period before taking an active part.

Qasim Amin’s The New Woman is an unmistakable declaration to imprison the modern Muslim woman in the chains of Christian and humanist ideals. Anyone who reads this book will find it genuinely difficult to believe that its author was a Muslim rather than a Christian missionary.

The arguments of The New Woman against Muslim society have no real basis. What Qasim Amin said resulted entirely from accepting all the attacks of Christian missionaries blindly, without the slightest attempt to examine the actual condition of Muslim women impartially and with an open mind. The truth is that even in this age of decline, the radiance of mutual love and sympathy emanates from most Muslim families. Among all the countries of the world, family ties are strongest in Muslim countries. As a result of this traditional family structure, Muslim women receive great honor, respect, and dignity as mothers and wives within the family. They do not observe purdah out of fear of the so-called male oppressor; rather, they do so knowing that it contains abundant benefit for them. It is not that this requires them to endure some mental pressure. But that is not because of women’s social humiliation; rather, it is because of the prevailing moral decline and deprivation.

In a personal letter written to me on April 1, 1961, Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi stated: “Western civilization has proved very cruel toward women. On the one hand, this civilization makes woman fulfill the duties of her natural femininity; on the other, it simultaneously takes her outside the home to participate in men’s numerous activities. Thus it has placed woman squarely between two millstones. Moreover, its propaganda has tempted women to make themselves competitively attractive to men. In this competition they have gone so far as to abandon natural modesty, adopting inadequate clothing and even nudity. In this way they have become playthings in men’s hands. Only Islam can save woman from this plight, because Islam assigns a woman exclusively to one man and, by protecting her in her natural duties, places her in an elevated position. Western civilization, on the other hand, has turned woman into a servant for the pleasure of countless men. It has also created in her heart a false sense of shame regarding all those activities that are truly becoming to a woman. Islamic principles concerning the family and household work are precisely suitable for a woman and completely compatible with her nature.”

Because of his blind allegiance to Western civilization, Qasim Amin in 1901 failed to understand that this Western propaganda for women’s liberation would lead later generations toward the fulfillment of unrestricted, universal, and illicit sexuality and would completely sever the natural family bonds of human beings.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the storm of propaganda that Qasim Amin raised through this book against purdah for Muslim women brought about an extraordinary transformation in Muslim society because of the wholehearted support it received from Christian missionaries and Western imperialists. As a result of this propaganda, a group of unruly women emerged in every Muslim country like weeds; they became determined to destroy Muslim women’s proper sense of responsibility and merge their way of life with that of immoral Western women.

——————-

Women’s Freedom and Islam

In the modern world, it may be impossible to find a Muslim country that has not fallen victim to the dangerous propaganda of Western advocates of women’s liberation, that has not labeled the purdah system a reactionary religious injunction, or that has not accepted so-called women’s freedom as an indispensable part of social and economic liberation. For example, in a report published in the Pakistan Times on October 19, 1976, Dr. Muhammad Muqaddam, Vice-Chancellor of Tehran University, said: “Modernization is impossible in any country unless the women of that country are made completely free from religious fanaticism. In many Eastern countries, the arrival of modernity has been delayed because of the entrenched fanaticism and primitive beliefs of their people regarding granting women freedom. If we cannot keep pace with the other countries of the world, we too will not be able to survive as an independent nation. The role of women is clear in all developing countries of Asia and Africa. For the development of the country, they must participate in all social, cultural, and political activities. But the most regrettable matter is that some people in the country do not want to understand this at all.”

Exactly this kind of comment was made at a seminar entitled “Women’s Rights in the Two Decades Since the Establishment of Pakistan,” held in Lahore in August 1976 at the initiative of the Pakistan National Integration Council. If we claim to be Muslims and regard Islam as the ideological foundation on which our country was established, is it not our duty to know what Islam has taught us about women’s freedom?

In expressing an opinion about women’s rights, it is stated in verse 34 of Surah an-Nisa: “Men are the guardians of women, because Allah has created men with greater capability than women, and men spend their wealth on women.”

The significance of this is that no Muslim woman is obliged to earn her own livelihood as long as she has sufficient means of subsistence, unless her husband dies, she is divorced, or she has no male relative able to support her.

According to the teachings of the Qur’an, the husband is his wife’s friend and head. The husband’s duty is to show justice, love, and mercy toward his wife, and in return the wife’s responsibility is to remain obedient and loyal to her husband and to place sincere trust in him so that he does not become immoral.

The Qur’an gives the husband a position one degree above the wife not so that he may become a cruel oppressor, but so that family protection may be established through him. In a family where the wife is financially self-sufficient, the husband naturally loses his role as the family’s authority. Conversely, when the mother’s authority in the family increases, the children’s respect for their father decreases.

Verses 30–31 of Surah an-Nur forbid Muslim men from looking at non-mahram women and Muslim women from looking at non-mahram men. Both men and women are instructed to lower their gaze from one another. Women are instructed to wear a covering over their heads and to cover their faces and chests with its ends. They are forbidden to display their beauty before anyone other than their husbands and close relatives whom they are forbidden to marry. In practical terms, these verses prohibit applying cosmetics to the face and wearing clothing that creates sexual allure.

It is known from hadith that when Hazrat Asma (may Allah be pleased with her), the younger sister of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), the wife of the Messenger (peace be upon him), once came before the Messenger wearing a thin garment, the Noble Prophet rebuked her, saying that when a woman reaches maturity, nothing but her face and hands should be exposed. In verse 55 of Surah al-Ahzab, Allah the Exalted forbade non-mahram men and unrelated women from entering the homes of the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and in verse 59 Muslim women were forbidden to go outside wearing attractive clothing and ornaments and were prohibited from displaying anything in their dress or conduct in public that might arouse people’s attraction toward them.

Women may speak openly only with the mahram men of the family, servants, and slaves.

Verse 53 of Surah al-Ahzab instructs believers to show proper respect to the wives of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and, when asking them for something, to ask from behind a screen. Verse 59 says that when a Muslim woman must leave the house for any reason, she should cover her entire body with a shawl so that she may be recognized as a religious woman and not be harassed. The Qur’an instructs the wives of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and in practice all Muslim women, that when it is necessary to meet a non-mahram man, she should not use an emotional manner with him that could produce feelings of love in his heart. Rather, the conversation should be simple and conventional. Hadith forbids Muslim women from undertaking a long journey alone with anyone other than their husbands and close relatives whom they are forbidden to marry—that is, without the supervision of a mahram man.

Whereas most sahih hadith discourage Muslim women from gathering in the mosque for congregational prayer and describe praying in a secluded corner of the home as more pleasing to God, how can a Muslim woman’s taking the role of private secretary, bank clerk, air hostess, hotel attendant, advertising model, singer, dancer, or actress in cinema, television, and radio be tolerated?

Verses 1–24 of Surah an-Nur warn of severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter for those who engage in extramarital sexual relations. Islam makes no provision for a double standard in this matter. The Qur’an and hadith make no distinction between the punishment of women and men who engage in illicit sexual relations. The same severe punishment is mentioned for both. Apart from this evidence from the Qur’an and hadith, what further evidence in support of purdah could Islam require? These restrictions on Muslim women’s movements have been imposed solely to protect women and restrain men from taking evil steps toward them. Islam is the only religion in the world that does not merely declare immorality evil, but also commands humanity to refrain from every social activity that incites immorality.

The first advocates of the women’s liberation movement were Marx and Engels, the founders of communism. In their Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, they wrote: “The home and family are nothing but a curse, because they bind women permanently in the chains of slavery.” They said: “Women must be freed from family bonds and given the opportunity to achieve complete economic independence through permanent employment in factories and mills.” Their later feminist advocates insisted on coeducation, men and women working together in the same workplaces outside the home, the mingling of men and women at social events, premarital romantic liaisons in semi-nude clothing, and opportunities for unrestricted sexual relations between men and women through drinking alcohol, taking drugs, and dancing and singing at group social gatherings. In this regard, they demanded government provision of contraceptives, sterilization, abortion of unwanted pregnancies, and state-controlled nurseries and boarding facilities for raising illegitimate children. This is the fundamental concept of the modern theory of “women’s rights.”

At a seminar held at the Gulberg Home Economics School in Lahore, the Vice-Chancellor of Tehran University tried to convince the audience that “the amount of evil added by modern civilization is far less than that arising from extremely anxious conservative reactionary ideas.” But does anyone know the reasons for this fear? Just look at the results the West is experiencing from women’s freedom!

An American historian and columnist, Max Lerner, says, “We live in a Babylonian society. As a result of emphasizing sensual gratification and sexual freedom, all the bonds of the old social norms and morals have been broken.” Until recently, the church, the state, the family, and the community determined what could or could not be made public. But now these institutions have been defeated by public demand. Their responsibility has now been reduced to merely hearing and seeing. Throughout the United States, spectators gather daily in art galleries and theaters to intensify their sexual excitement by watching the pornographic dances and songs of the nearly naked Swedish actress in the “I Am a Woman” series. Italian film director Michelangelo Antonioni has flouted all religious prohibitions against nudity in his film “Blow Up.” The French comedienne Jane Fonda drifts from one scene of nudity to another, increasingly more nude, while repeatedly extolling free love in the provocative film Barbarella. The film entitled “The Portrait of Jason,” lasting at least two hours, which recounts the wandering of the distorted soul of a male Negro prostitute, is now openly shown in almost all American theaters, and has reduced the dimensions of human life. The Christian theologian Father Walter J. Ong says, “We are soon going to have the opportunity to live a freer life than at any time in the known past…..” (From the article “Everything Is Going Where Society Is Going,” published in the April 1968 issue of Reader’s Digest).

Let us examine the effect this social decline in the West has had on Muslim countries. Cinema is one of the principal and effective means of women’s liberation and moral degradation. “Every girl in Lahore’s Hira Mandi district aspires to become an actress. They all want to become film heroines. They are willing to make any sacrifice to fulfill this desire. A large number of these girls are willing to appear anywhere to please so-called film directors and producers, on condition that their desire to become heroines is fulfilled. These are the women who are most easily and commonly misled by the film industry. Most of them are happy if they get a few minor acting opportunities. Quite a few more girls become associated with cinema in this way. Only a small number of them, of course, achieve recognition. Many hotels in the city are used for ‘good times.’ Some hotel managers play the role of pimps. Most restaurants are used as meeting places for immoral women and their clients. These women can also be seen at the city’s bus stations. The city’s theaters are also well-known places for soliciting clients. It is not the case that theaters are used only for watching films. In all these matters, the role of the police is very lax.” (From the report “Prostitution in Lahore,” published in The Pakistan Times on March 29 and 30, 1968).

Can forming an army of women like Christine Keeler or Marilyn Monroe be part of our national development?

The propaganda in newspapers, radio, and cinema in favor of women’s liberation has belittled and diminished women’s role as wives and mothers. This propaganda has portrayed women’s remaining at home to raise children as an intolerable loss caused by the absence of half the workforce from national economic activity.

As a result of the rapid spread of coeducation in Muslim countries under state authority, unrestricted interaction between boys and girls and the tendency toward sexual offenses have increased so greatly that they have brought countless young men and women to the brink of ruin and led to the widespread commission of innumerable sins. Coeducation is founded on the mistaken idea that there is no innate difference between women and men, and therefore both must train themselves for identical work in the same fields. Consequently, girls who receive coeducation are very poorly prepared for marriage and motherhood. Even so, women’s liberationists continue to say that girls’ primary responsibility is in their husbands’ homes. The other meaning of this is that modern women must perform double duties. Even after working outside the home all day to earn their own livelihood, they must return home and fulfill nearly impossible obligations such as raising children, arranging the household, and meeting their husbands’ needs. Is this justice?

Have the family laws recently enacted in Muslim countries, modeled on Western law, actually brought any improvement to the condition of our women? These laws carefully set an age limit for marriage, but completely forget to impose any prohibition on illicit sexual activity by boys and girls below that age—the age at which marriage is prohibited.

In most Muslim countries, modernists have violated the laws of the Qur’an and Sunnah and declared polygamy to be severely restricted or even prohibited. They never want to understand this state of mind: is it better for a wife to share her husband’s love with another wife who is under his protection and whose children receive their father’s love and care, or is it better to see him secretly maintaining an illicit relationship with some woman because domestic law prevents him from taking another wife without divorcing his present wife and turning her and her children out?

Would it not be beneficial for the woman who cannot live well with her husband to be personally divorced by him, so that the couple could separate peacefully and then enter into new marriages of their choice? Or is it better for their case to go to court, where the husband, compelled to fulfill the court-prescribed “necessary conditions” for divorce in order to free himself from the marriage, will falsely accuse his wife of immoral conduct and insanity—charges that will become a social stigma for her and permanently reduce the poor woman’s good name and reputation to dust?

In fact, the advocates of women’s liberation are not concerned with women’s personal happiness and well-being. At a symposium organized in Lahore by the All-Pakistan Women’s Council, Mrs. Satnam Mahmood, an active supporter of the council, frankly admitted in her speech that although Western women enjoy material abundance, complete social freedom, and equal rights, they are nevertheless not happy with the happiness they desire. She said that if spiritual happiness is the goal, its solution will not be found in so-called women’s liberation. The opportunistic social worker and one of the council’s members, Begum Kaisera Anwar Ali, expressed such despair in her speech about highly educated women who are ignorant of their own religion, culture, and national language that she seemed unaware that her organization supports and patronizes this arrogance among girls.

What is the real purpose of the propaganda that “a women’s liberation movement must be established in every Muslim country”? It is actually a dangerous conspiracy that seeks to destroy our homes, families, and even the entire social system. Cheap slogans such as “women’s rights,” “women’s liberation,” and “women’s development” merely conceal the real objective beneath a veil of illusion.

The women’s liberation movement in the Muslim world will bring about the same extreme consequences that are now occurring elsewhere in the world. The shameful behavior in sexual matters in which humanity today is engaged worldwide surpasses even the conscience of wild animals. The inevitable consequence of this behavior will be the complete collapse of all the bonds of social morality, including the household and family system, and the widespread appearance of juvenile delinquency, corruption, oppression, political instability, and the ineffectiveness of the law. All history of the past bears true witness that whenever sin and immorality have spread widely in a society, that society has not been able to survive much longer.

——————–

The Women’s Equality Movement and Muslim Women

One of the most influential fundamental movements of the present age, demanding a transformation of the entire social structure and of all human relationships, is the women’s equality movement. It is better known by the name “women’s liberation movement.”

The “women’s liberation movement” is not a creation unique to the present age. Its historical background reaches back to ancient times. In his work The Republic, Plato demanded the abolition of family life and of social relationships defined by women and men. This feminist idea was championed in the ancient sexual comedy Lysistrata and in Henrik Ibsen’s (1828–1906) play A Doll’s House, written in the nineteenth century. The Victorian-era economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill and the socialist philosopher Friedrich Engels provided the theoretical foundation for women’s liberation in the essay “The Subjection of Women,” written in 1869. In 1884, Engels declared publicly, “Marriage is a kind of joyless slavery.” He advised abolishing the institution of marriage and raising children under government administration.

In America, the “women’s liberation” movement began as an adjunct to the abolitionist and temperance movements. The women who took part in these movements realized that they needed political power to strengthen their demands. The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 was the pioneer of this “women’s liberation movement.” Its declaration demanded women’s full control over their own property and earnings, a wife’s power to divorce her husband, mothers’ guardianship over their children, equal pay and benefits for the same work after eliminating distinctions between men and women in employment, and women’s voting rights and representation in elections.

When the campaign for women’s suffrage began, the more conservative feminists devoted all their efforts to this single issue. When the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced in 1920, it was found that what women activists and the public had envisioned—women’s right to vote in elections—had been fully accepted in the Constitution. After that, the feminist movement remained dormant for more than forty years.

On December 14, 1961, President F. Kennedy signed an executive order establishing a President’s Commission on the Status of Women. The order called for identifying the prevailing ideas, customs, practices, and policies that obstructed the implementation of “women’s rights” and recommending remedies. The establishment of this President’s Commission was the first official step in the United States concerning the status of women. Thus, in the first part of the 1960s, the dormant feminist movement of fifty years rose again through meetings, rallies, marches, and protest programs, and female students at colleges and universities began participating in these political activities. The women who attended the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 had merely protested abuse and verbal mistreatment by drunken husbands and demanded women’s legal rights in marriage, property protection, the right to earn, and equal pay for women and men doing the same work. But their heirs were far more radical than they had been.

The largest and most spectacular women’s equality protest rally in history took place on August 26, 1970. On that day, thousands of women gathered on Fifth Avenue in New York carrying placards. The placards read: “Housewives are merely unpaid slaves,” “We want government allowances for housework,” “Battered women, do not cook rice; keep your husbands fasting all night,” “Forget human sympathy,” “Do not get married,” “Washing towels is not women’s work,” “Legalize abortion,” “Subordination is not desirable for a healthy life,” and so on.

Feminists today are vehemently opposed to any social activity determined by differences between the sexes. They demand absolute and unconditional equality between women and men, even in matters of bodily structure. Feminists do not acknowledge that there may be a created difference between women and men. Therefore, they are unwilling to accept that the wife should be a homemaker and mother, while the husband should be the earner and head of the household. They believe that women, like men, must take an active role in sexual activity; being passive is unacceptable. For this reason, they demand full sexual freedom for women through abolishing marriage, the household, and the family system and introducing child-rearing under government administration. They urge all women to establish full control over their sexual lives. Accordingly, they strongly demand the removal of government restrictions on all contraceptive materials, so that advertisements for these materials can be published and girls of all ages, married or unmarried, can purchase them from any drugstore without a doctor’s prescription. They demand that all restrictions concerning abortion be removed and that women be given full rights to terminate pregnancies at any age. It is not enough merely to permit abortion when necessary; abortion must be provided free of charge under government administration so that poor women may obtain it whenever they wish. Coeducation must be introduced in all subjects in schools. Home economics must not be reserved only for girls, nor marketing and technical education only for boys. Separate arrangements for boys and girls in gymnasiums and physical education must be abolished. Girls must be permitted to play sports and compete in physical exercises with boys of all ages. The media must promote the idea that “women and men are equal in work and production,” avoiding even terms that indicate sexual distinction. Feminists criticize children’s books because they contain no examples of single-mother or single-father families and do not present the motherhood of unmarried women or women separated from their husbands as an ideal. They say mothers should be given mechanical toys to play with and boys mechanical dolls. Radical feminists propose abolishing all established systems concerning marriage, the household, and the family, turning all women and men living in small communities into one large sexual zone, and keeping child-rearing entirely under government administration. For this reason, just as parks, libraries, and other facilities have been established throughout almost all areas of America for public recreation, they demand that free childcare centers be established in all areas under government administration. Their demand is that femininity must not constitute any obstacle to entering a profession.

An article entitled “The Rebirth of Feminism,” published in The New York Times in 1971, stated:

“Many women may say that they want to follow traditional ways. But they cannot do so because it is very frightening or difficult even to contemplate. Yes, the old rules may seem to contain a safe arrangement. But it is like someone acquiring some power inside a prison and then finding the outside world frightening. Perhaps these women are afraid because they cannot decide what they prefer. We do not want to impose anything on women. We merely want to present all the alternative paths that may be acceptable to them. We have discovered desirable things whose adoption can make a person a true human being. We want to give people complete freedom. We do not want to chain them through any custom, law, or mental slavery. If nature has no place for this, nature must make a place for it.”

Among the “alternative choices” feminists have found for women is female homosexuality (lesbianism). One branch of the women’s liberation movement is a homosexual organization known as “The Daughters of Bilitis.” Its objective is to promote female homosexuality.

Elsewhere in the book “The Rebirth of Feminism,” it is stated: “There are many members of the women’s liberation movement who were homosexual before this movement began, and some members who became homosexual after participating in it. Among those who became homosexual later, some chose it as a form of political protest. According to these radical feminists, ‘female homosexuality’ is a means of women’s self-defense against male oppression.”

A compilation entitled “The New Woman,” concerning the aims of women’s liberation, published in New York in 1970, states: In America, lesbians are a minority, but their number is no fewer than ten million. Lesbians are women who are more attracted to girls than to men. The most reasoned and least eccentric comments on homosexuality were perhaps made by two prominent psychiatrists, Dr. Joel Fort and Dr. Jo K. Adams. Their comment, published in 1966, was as follows: Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, belong to the same human group. No law, social organizer, or employer may designate them as a separate human group. Laws concerning sexual behavior must be amended so that they can address antisocial juvenile behavior, rape, and assault. Any sexual behavior privately carried out by consenting adults must not be regarded as a matter subject to state or governmental intervention.”

Now consider the consequences of this evolutionary women’s liberation movement and what kind of social system they want.

Pages 122–125 of the same book state: “Thus woman is to man as a worshiper is to a deity. A deity may accept a worshiper’s devotion, but will not take the worshiper as its own; rather, it will later kick the worshiper away. A deity and a worshiper can never become one. Our social teaching concerning sexual life is that strict restraint must be observed during the first ten years after the emergence of adolescence (even masturbation is regarded, at most, as a kind of incapacity-like offense in this regard). Thereafter, one must retain only one person as a sexual partner for the rest of one’s life. In reality, society is trying to keep us ignorant and suspicious of an improved sexual life and to convince us that the forbidden fruit of promiscuous sexuality can never be better than what morally upright people receive. What an obstacle conventional protest is! If we can overcome this obstacle and satisfy and explore our homosexual inclinations and curiosity, only then can we judge how moral or immoral our emotions are, and only then will it be possible gradually to become acquainted with their apparent consequences, qualities, and purposes and take effective remedial measures. What will happen if a man denies his masculinity and accepts all the values of unity, humility, mutual discussion, consideration, cooperation, courteous refusal, and disagreement? Just as we cannot deny the refinement of our imagination concerning sexuality, neither can we deny all the natural sexual elements of our relationships. The ways in which this sexual relationship occurs—conversation, touch, gestures, and expressions of love—must be separated from the conservatives’ notion of moral purity and left to our innocent choice.”

Is it better to remain suspended in the bonds of marriage with one person for life, or is a varied life better? Before marrying anyone, many people want an initial relationship. This initial relationship is very necessary and commendable. If anyone considers even this a problem, it is because they want to ensure that we do not fall into the clutches of some immoral girl. This is an escapist mentality. It is wrong. But not because a sexual relationship occurs with someone; rather, because of the mentality of withdrawing from forming a relationship with someone. Therefore, the problem will remain.

We have a tendency to preserve all our kinship relationships excessively. We want to loosen them so that everyone can express sexual attraction openly and directly. Will this kind of freedom for women and men destroy America’s traditional family system? I certainly think so. For this family system is an institution that is the source of many problems. The family is a testing ground for want, complaint, and the expression of ability, as well as for the collective effort of many people living together and earning a livelihood.

Fortunately, the feminist movement in Muslim countries has not yet reached such an extreme form. But as a result of the policy of modernization, or Westernization, the veil system is rapidly disappearing, women are becoming rebellious toward religious tradition, and they are shaping themselves after Western girls.

The book entitled “Woman in the Modern World,” written by Raphael Patai and published in New York in 1967, states:

“Urban, wealthy, and conventionally minded women, especially women of this kind in Tehran, now spend very little time on household tasks. They spend almost all their time in social, professional, recreational, and charitable activities. Visiting dressmakers and hairdressers, going to hotel restaurants with friends for breakfast and lunch, and attending various functions have become the daily activities of these women. In addition, they spend time outside the home playing sports and enjoying holidays. A large number of women in this class have become increasingly attracted to cultural and charitable work. (p. 77)”

The number of women who spend their time outside the home is increasing rapidly in various cities of Lebanon. Every Sunday, women are by no means fewer than men among those gathering on the beaches of Beirut. Almost all of them are young men and women of the new generation.

This mingling on the beach is undoubtedly evidence of the loosening of social bonds. In Lebanon, women of the Western-oriented upper and middle classes who wish to walk about wearing such clothes are not strongly restrained either. Girls from almost all classes of society are displaying an extraordinary fascination with clothing, not only at beaches or recreational centers but at all functions as well. University students do wear winter clothing in winter, but in summer they wear tight silk garments or skirts and thin blouses. These are accompanied by high-heeled shoes, nylon stockings, and attractive makeup. Some Muslim girls who are not university students hang very thin and symbolic niqabs over their faces. Even a few years ago, girls felt ashamed to bathe at the beach. Now they eagerly embrace it, and many go swimming in very short bikinis.

Feminism is the product of an abnormal, artificial, and deliberate movement intended to destroy the established social system. Its aim is to reject all invisible beliefs, morality, and spiritual values. Students of anthropology and history will be able to provide a definite understanding of the futility and irrationality of this feminist movement. For it is abundantly clear from all human civilizations and human behavior in prehistoric and historical times that there will always be a distinction between women and men in society, and that society is formed through the combination of these two separate beings, women and men. In societies where the separation of the household and family, the abolition of the father’s authority in the family, and sexual disorder have become widespread, all such societies have ultimately declined and been destroyed.

Someone might say: if that is so, how did the West, despite its moral decline and corruption, remain so dynamic, powerful, and strong in world leadership?

Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi stated the following in the discussion entitled “The Dignity of Women” in his heroic book Purdah and Islam:

“When moral licentiousness, self-worship, and sexual degeneration reach an extreme level in a society; when men and women, young and old, become lost in sexual madness—in other words, when the people of an entire society become completely sexually perverted—that society naturally moves toward the inevitable consequence of destruction. Those who witness the progress and prosperity of such a destructive society are in fact looking at a society standing on the edge of a fiery abyss, into which it will fall at any moment with all its self-conceit. They think that a society rises to the highest peak of prosperity only when all its people abandon morality and become self-serving. But this too is a tragic conclusion. When destructive and constructive elements operate side by side in a society, and the constructive elements remain ahead of the destructive ones in some respect, it is entirely unjust to think that destructive activities have triumphed over constructive activities. For example, consider a clever businessman who has earned a large profit through hard work, sharp experience, and intelligence. But he spends it on alcohol, gambling, and an unrestrained way of life. Can this aspect of his activities bring him any prosperity or welfare? The plain truth is that just as the first kind of quality leads him toward advancement, the second kind leads him toward degradation. If he advances because of his good qualities, that does not mean that his evil qualities are ineffective. It may be that the devil of gambling will take away all his wealth in a moment; as a result of drinking, he may suffer such a terrible accident that he becomes bankrupt; and it may also be that the devil of sexual misconduct will drive him to suicide, murder, or some other tragic condition. No one can forcefully claim that, merely because he is presently enjoying prosperity, luxury, and apparent merriment, he will never one day fall into any of these tragic conditions. Similarly, a nation initially receives the impetus for advancement from constructive forces. But later, for lack of proper supervision, the seeds of destruction begin to be sown around it. Gradually, these constructive forces lose their own momentum, and the evil forces active all around cast them into an even deeper abyss.”

Where does the emancipation of humanity lie? From the standpoint of social organization, Islamic Shariah also gives the family priority as the basic unit of society. The word “family” carries a broad meaning here. It is not any conception of the family in the nuclear or atomized form of the present age.

The great success of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medina was his ability to eradicate every kind of custom and superstition prevalent among the local inhabitants and Bedouin Arabs and to build an entirely new society on the foundation of religion. The bond of this new society was connected, on the one hand, with the entire Muslim community and, on the other, with every Muslim family. Muslim families are each a miniature representation of Muslim society and its foundation. In Islam’s collectivist nature, the father is the imam or leader of the family. He is the principal person responsible for the family’s religious activities. The father presents and implements the family’s religious beliefs, conduct, and rules. The father is Allah’s representative in the family; symbolically, his authority is Allah’s authority. A man is honored in the family because he is its religious guide. He alone fulfills all the religious needs of the family members. Whenever men refrained from fulfilling these religious needs of the family and failed to exercise manly authority, women in some places in Muslim countries dared to engage in irreligious conduct. These men responded to the irreligious conduct of those ‘advanced’ women by abandoning their own manhood and becoming followers of the women.

The book entitled Ideals and Realities of Islam, written by Sayyid Hossein Nasr and published in London in 1966, states:

The traditional, orthodox family is a unit of a stable society. The fact that a Muslim man may marry four women at one time is like the four-sided Kaaba, a symbol of permanence. Many may not understand why Islam permits this kind of family structure, and for this reason they criticize Islam’s practice of polygamy. Muslim modernists, like the Christian community, harbor hostility toward Islam for this reason and even claim that polygamy is immoral.

To reduce illicit sexual relations, they even recommend promiscuity within the social structure as a lesser evil. In this matter, the viewpoint of this small modernist Muslim community is far more harmful than that of Western observers. This is because they do not wish to understand the teachings of Islamic Shariah and are in no way willing to place Shariah above modern Western class-based concepts.

Undoubtedly, women belonging to a small but very important section of present-day Muslim society are opposing conventional and traditional Islamic practices. The history of every civilization shows the ongoing activity of a reactionary group against the existing powers. In Hinduism, the maternal aspect has always been strong. In Islam, however, male authority is paramount. Women of an extremist modernist disposition have made this Islamic practice the principal target of their attacks. The rebellion of these modernist Muslim women is in fact the result of the efforts that the enemies within Muslim society have made for fourteen hundred years to break Muslim society apart. Male authoritarianism is the reason these women have become reactionary. These women, insignificant in number compared with men, want everything about them to be Western in style. With intense emotion, they want to become Western in character and dress. It would be difficult to understand the reason for this emotionalism without analyzing the psychological causes underlying it.

From the Islamic viewpoint, the claim of equality between women and men is as irrational as saying that roses and jasmine are equal in quality. Both flowers have distinct fragrances, colors, forms, and beauties. Likewise, women and men are not the same. Each has a different constitution and conduct. Just as women cannot be equal to men, men cannot be equal to women. Islam has therefore considered them not as rivals to one another but as partners and helpers of one another. In accordance with their respective natures, it has assigned each of them separate responsibilities and duties.

Since men must perform many important and difficult tasks, they are given the opportunity to enjoy certain social privileges and advantages, such as authority and leadership.

First, he must bear major economic responsibilities. He is responsible for meeting the family’s overall expenses. On the other hand, even if the wife is wealthy or financially independent, the responsibility for her maintenance remains with the husband. In an ideal Muslim society, a woman need not worry about earning a livelihood. There is such a broad family framework here that she can find her place somewhere within it. Even in the absence of her husband or father, this family system will provide her with shelter and a means of protecting herself from economic pressure. In this extended Islamic family, a responsible man bears responsibility not only for raising and supporting his wife and children, but, when necessary, also assists his mother, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, sisters-in-law, mother-in-law, and even cousins and more distant relatives. Thus, unlike urban life, where a Muslim woman must expend all her energy searching for a job, all the needs of the family are obtained from within or through joint effort, since each family in life is an economic unit. Consequently, a woman need not become involved in unnecessary economic activity.

Second, a Muslim woman cannot seek out a husband for herself, nor can she display her beauty in a way that attracts anyone and allows her to hope of eventually having him as her husband. Thus, a Muslim woman is entirely free from the terrible anxiety of having to find someone as a husband and the unbearable pain of failing to find one. In accordance with her natural character, she remains at home until her parents or guardians find a suitable groom for her. Such a marriage is a truly religiously lawful marriage, and through it the family and social bonds acquire stability. Marriages contracted under the influence of momentary emotion often cannot last. But marriages arranged through the considered judgment of guardians are generally lasting, and such marriages usually do not end in divorce.

Third, apart from one or two rare necessities, Muslim women are free from direct participation in bloody warfare and politics. This may seem to many like a deprivation. But if judged in light of the true needs of women’s nature, it will be seen that participation in such activities proves very burdensome and difficult for most women. Even in those modern societies where women and men are being made equal through an ‘egalitarian’ system, women are kept away from participation in the armed forces until an extreme situation arises.

Elsewhere in the book Ideals and Realities of Islam, Sayyid Hossein Nasr says, “In return for the opportunities and advantages Islam has given women, they must fulfill several specific responsibilities. The most important of these is to give the family a peaceful nest and raise the children properly. In the family, the wife’s role is like that of an empress. The man, meanwhile, is an honored guest in his family, the wife’s honored guest. The home and the wider family environment in which she lives constitute the world of the Muslim woman. For a woman, separation from the home means separation from the world or leaping into the bosom of death. The Muslim woman finds the meaning of her existence within the broad family structure, and within this family lie all the elements needed to fulfill her needs and provide her self-satisfaction.

Shariah directs the work and position of women and men in society as complementary to each other, according to their natures. It grants men social and political dominance because they bear all the responsibilities of their families and protect them from all familial financial, social, and other pressures. Although a man rules the realm outside the home and is the head of the family, within the home he respectfully accepts his wife’s direction.

The husband and wife in every Muslim family accept, through mutual understanding, the separate responsibilities that Almighty Allah has placed upon women and men, and thereby build a family with a firm foundation that serves as a basic unit of the entire sound social structure.”

Those in the Christian world who support the women’s liberation movement are, by rebelling against moral, cultural, and spiritual values and denying the indispensability of the family system, in fact rejecting and rebelling against the whole heritage of their own civilization.

Modern Europe knows very well that, despite the evils of feudalism and the oppression of the clergy in medieval Christian society, social cohesion, peace, stability, and unity prevailed. A vivid description of the values practiced in Christian families in medieval Europe is given below from the family chronicle of the famous German painter Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528), who was a devout Christian: the family life described by a member of the Dürer family is very close to the Islamic family system.

“My revered father, Albrecht Dürer, went to Germany and stayed for a long time in a poor rural area there. Then he came to Nuremberg on Saint Eligius’s Day in 1455 (July 25). That day was the wedding day of Philip Parkimer. The house had therefore been decorated, and arrangements had been made to receive guests beneath the great lime tree. From then until 1468, my beloved father looked after the elderly Hieronymus Hoper for many years. Hoper then married his beautiful, well-built, religious fifteen-year-old daughter Barbara to him. This marriage took place eight days before Saint Vitus’s Day (June 8). My noble mother gave birth to eight children and raised them. At times she had to face contagious diseases and serious illnesses and endure severe hunger, ridicule, mockery, contempt, and anxiety; but she never harbored inner unrest or a desire for revenge. All the children of my beloved father—my brothers and sisters—died, some young and some after growing up. Only we three brothers are still alive, and we shall live as long as the Lord wills. We three brothers are myself, Albrecht, my brother Andreas, and my brother-like Hans. Hans was not my father’s child. My father was also the eldest among his brothers. He worked hard throughout his life. He earned with his own hands the means to support himself, his wife, and his children. His life contained much sorrow, temptation, and adversity.”

Grateful to God, benevolent toward people, patient, and humble, this man was an ideal Christian. Everyone who knew him praised him. He asked very little of society. He was a man of few words and God-fearing. My great father was deeply concerned to teach his children the fear of God. His greatest hope was to raise his children to be righteous in the sight of God and people. For this reason, he always advised us to love God and behave well toward people. Since I was very interested in education, he was especially fond of me. That is why he sent me to school. Once I had learned to read and write, he took me from school and taught me the goldsmith’s trade and techniques. When I became proficient in this art, I felt that becoming a painter was better than becoming a goldsmith. When I told my father this, he was unable to hear it happily and expressed regret for the time I had lost as his apprentice. But in the end he allowed me to advance according to my wishes, and on Saint Andrew’s Day in 1486 (November 30), my father placed me as an apprentice for three years under Mikhail and Lojimut. During this period, too, the Lord gave me the strength to work, and it was then that I learned the subject well. But I was severely mistreated by my teacher’s assistants. When I returned home after completing my training, Hansfrey discussed the matter with my father and decided to marry his daughter Agnes to me. Along with Agnes, he also gave me 200 florins. Our marriage took place on Monday, July 7, shortly before Saint Margaret’s Day in 1494.

Some time afterward, my father contracted dysentery and did not recover despite anyone’s treatment. When he saw that death was approaching, he surrendered himself to it very calmly and patiently and instructed me to care for my mother and for all of us to live according to God’s decree. The last sacrament of his life (the Christian Communion) was administered, and he died the death of a devout Christian. He left my mother a widow. During his lifetime, my father always spoke highly of my mother to me. He would say, ‘Your mother is a very good woman.’ For this reason, I resolved never to forget my mother.

O my friends, I tell you in the name of God: when you read the account of the death of my devout father, pray to Christ and Mother Mary for his welfare in the Hereafter and for your own good, saying, ‘May God grant us a fruitful life and a blessed death through His service.’ It is never possible for a person to live a good life and die an evil death, because God is Merciful.

Now I inform you that my mother, whom I had taken under my care two years after my father’s death, when she had become penniless, became seriously ill after remaining in my care for nine years. This happened on the Tuesday before Rogation Day in 1513. That morning we broke down the door of her room and brought her out, because she had become so weak that she had no strength to open the door, and breaking it down was the only option. We brought her to the lower floor, and both ‘sacraments’ (Communion for the Lord) were administered to her, because everyone thought she was dying. She had never been physically well since my father’s death.

More than a year after the day she became ill, two hours before darkness fell on the night of May 17, 1514, my noble mother Barbara Dürer left this world, and a ceremony was conducted through the Pope’s religious clergy for the remission of her sins and sorrows. Before her death, she blessed me and prayed for my welfare in the Hereafter, and gave me much advice to avoid sinful deeds. Although she was very frightened of death, she said that she was not at all afraid to meet God. I was so grieved by my mother’s death that I cannot express it in words. May God bless her soul. She found great peace in continually praising God and in seeing that we honored God. She had the habit of attending church regularly. If I made any mistake, she would become very angry and rebuke me severely. She was always afraid that my brothers or I might commit some wrongdoing. Whenever we went outside or returned home from outside, she would say, ‘May God be your help.’ She always kept us mindful of our souls, our physical nature, and our religion. I could never finish describing all her deeds, her kindness toward people, and the aspects of her worthy of praise. When she died, she was sixty-three years old, and I buried her as well as I could. May the Great Lord grant me too the death of a true Christian, grant me the grace to meet with Him and with His heavenly servants—my father, mother, and friends—and grant us blessed eternal life in the Hereafter. Amen! Throughout her life, my mother dreamed of greater happiness beyond death.”

The uni-sexual society proposed by advocates of equal rights is one in which no social or cultural distinction between women and men is recognized, and it is a society in which marriage, household life and family, modesty, chastity, and motherhood are despised and regarded not as signs of ‘progress’ and ‘freedom’ but rather as causes of extreme degradation. Its result is nothing but pure anarchy, boundless disorder, and complete social disorganization.

If that is so, why is equal-rights ideology (Feminism) still so popular? The essay ‘Religion and Civilization,’ written by Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi and published in Lucknow in 1970, states:

“A social system founded on materialism is very old and also highly popular. No other social system has been so readily acceptable, satisfying, and effortlessly developable to the majority of people in any country or age. It has such a captivating and profound attraction for the masses that its roots need not be driven deeply into society, nor is it necessary to awaken human intelligence for it. Nor does it require any sacrifice or self-denial. No one has to endure any suffering or hardship for anyone else. One need only move with the times, following the herd. History bears witness that no social system other than materialism has ever had the opportunity to exercise such extensive and sweeping authority over humankind.”

At no time has moral degradation and social decline spread so universally over humanity as it has in the present age. The idea of equality between women and men has brought humanity below the level of animals. An animal is driven by its innate instincts and cannot do anything contrary to its nature. There is no homosexuality among animals. A male animal of a particular species is attracted only to females of that species. No male animal ever harbors sexual desire for another male animal, and no female animal ever harbors sexual desire for another female animal. Among animals, once the young grow up and learn to care for themselves, the maternal relationship is completely severed. Among males of most species, no interest in their offspring is observed. Among animals there are no such things as modesty, chastity, marriage, or family bonds including daughters and sons. These ideas and bonds are regarded as an inseparable part of human culture alone. Female egalitarians seek to destroy these qualities that signify the human mind and gradually weaken the foundation of all relationships existing among human beings and all social bonds. Its consequence will be suicide. And that suicide will not belong to any single nation; rather, it will be for the entire human species.

— End —