The Role of Women in Muslim Society

Women, tradition, modernity, and Islam

The role of women in Muslim society has been a matter of serious contention for the last 200 years, ever since the colonial regimes used “the woman question” as a means of justifying their colonial expansion into Muslim lands. Colonialism, like all imperial expansions, requires a narrative. For whatever reason, it is not enough for humans to say, “we are stronger than you, therefore we conquer you.” Man must attempt to justify to himself that conquest is a natural consequence of another’s inferiority - of civilization, as was with the Romans; of religion, as was with Abrahamic conquest; or of intellect, as was with colonial expansion.

The moral, to the enlightenment and post-enligtenment era intellectual, was entirely intellectual. The immoral is not, in fact, a lack of belief or faith or uprightness. To him, the immoral is unreason, as morality is entirely embedded within reason - as all things good and noble should be. Thus, a moral critique to this kind of thinker is not simply a ethical critique - it is, rather, a demonstration of savagery over unreason, of the overpowering of passions (always negative) over the immovable mountain of reason.

The justification for conquest always reflects what a culture believes to be its own greatest quality. For the Romans, it was civilization; and so, the less civilized shall be conquered for their own civilization (the famous “Romanization” of Gaul, for example). For the Abrahamic faiths, it was religion; and so, the heathen must be conquered for his own salvation. For the colonial European, it was reason; and so, the savage must be conquered for his own education.

The backdrop of this discourse in relation to conquest thus understood, one begins to understand the formula for European justification for colonialism: the immoral = the unreasonable = the savage = eligible for conquest for the sake of education (this formula is best illustrated by Kant’s elucidation in Perpetual Peace). Thus, when European attempted to justify conquest over the Muslim world, two great justifications became the continual lynchpins of their colonial projects: the apparent savagery of Muslim religious violence; and the subjugation of women in Muslim societies.

This narrative of dual justification continues to animate Muslim discourses on their own traditions and narratives, not simply because they are historical artifacts. Indeed, we have all seen the weaponization of feminism and appeals to “terrorism” to justify wars, sanctions, and “targeted assassinations” (often indiscriminate bombing in civilian areas). What this has led to, however, is extraordinarily reactive discourse within Muslim societies themselves.

What is often at stake is not the role of women, the legal status of jihad, or the state of minorities in the Muslim world. Instead, what is at stake is the acceptance of communal domination under the guise of moral justification. There is much more at stake in contending with critiques of Muslim society; and, in the midst of all this, what is often sacrificed is the lived experience of those who are at the receiving end of the dysfunctions within the historical practice of Islam.

“Tradition” vs. Modernity

I loathe the word tradition. Its sound is nails on the chalkboard of my mind. Appeals to tradition are the daydreams of an ox fantasizing about life as a bull. “Tradition” is never “traditional.” It is a highly romanticized, carefully curated set of facts that are meant to contrast what is considered contemporary dysfunction. The tradition is only traditional in that it no longer exists. As such, if the dysfunctions of today can be found in the past, they would not be “traditional.”

At some point, the ox romanticizes the bull with such passion that the bull becomes an authority in and of himself. The bull is romanticized as the greatest manifestation of a bovine, and everything he does becomes authoritative simply because he, unlike the ox, has not been castrated. So, too, do many Muslims treat their “tradition.” With only a sparce reading of history, and the hand-waving of obvious severe dysfunctions in those societies, they create an idol that is in its very being authority.

“This is how it was always done,” he says - without questioning the how, or the always, or the done. Or, even more importantly than all that, he accepts a fundamental assumption: that which was done by perceived bulls is correct simply because they were bulls. It is entirely impermissible to say that, yes, indeed, that may have been how it was done. And it was done incorrectly.

The reason for this, of course, is because of the specter of colonial discourse. Admitting imperfections is tantamount to justifying domination and subjugation - to become the eager native informant who becomes the brown mouthpiece of colonial aggression (what we sometimes call the “kala sahib” or “brown gentleman” in the subcontinent). Muslim society was perfect because, were it not, its domination would be justified.

The Role of Women in Muslim Societies

Where does that leave the women in Muslim societies? What was, in fact, the role of women in those societies? The orientalist claims utter dehumanization, subjugation, and oppression; and the imperialist picks up on these as justification for imperial ambition. The conscientious scholar retorts, “this is a flattening, an essentialist reading of a highly nuanced position of women who navigated their societies with great agility.” Neither, however, wants to look at reality in the face.

The orientalist does not wish to look at the nuance in Muslim society because he simply wants to prove its savagery. And the conscientious scholar doesn’t want to acknowledge the towering evidence of immense subjugation because to do so would be to justify imperial aggression.

The Muslim reader has a distinct reaction. The kala sahib borrows the orientalist critique and pushes an agenda of “reform” which suspiciously looks a lot like complete westernization. The woman is only “free” and “liberated” if her role and place and culture and practice is exactly that of the “Western woman” (which always means the caricature of the white, liberal, upper class, woman).

The reactionary “traditionalist,” however, acknowledges the subjugation of the woman in pre-modern Muslim societies, but he flips the value judgement: women deserve to be subjugated because they are entirely sexual objects whose existence is an aphrodisiac, and “Western” ideas for women - education and contribution to public life - is an evil means to the creation of fornication.

What is forgotten, of course, is that this discussion should not be about imperialism or tradition or moral valuation of societies. It should be about the well-being and flourishing of women as an equal part of society as men.

How Much Modesty is Too Much Modesty?

At the core of traditionalist justifications for the exclusion of women in society is the concept of modesty. It is more or less an uncontroversial point that the role of the sahabiyyat (ra) in Madinah was entirely different than that which became common in most Muslim societies from the 3rd century onwards. To get an overview of this, read Abu Shuqqah’s study into the role of women in prophetic society, available in English on Amazon (not an affiliate link).

The legal mechanism - a completely sound mechanism in many instances - to justify the shift from the prophetic period to the classical period is one called “fasad al-zaman,” the corruption of the era. The logic is as follows: the sahabah (ra) were of much greater in their iman and taqwa. Therefore, for those who are not as pious as them, the public space has to be made devoid of women in order to protect society from the vice of zina.

There are two major problems with this argument: firstly, it ignores the fact that curtailing female inclusion in society did not curtail zina - it only shifted it in extremely perverted ways. Even though this fact is denied by many traditionalists, it is more or less historically agreed upon that pederasty, sex with young boys, was prevalent in Muslim societies from Turkey to India. Sexuality cannot be erased - its weight can only be shifted. And the weight was shifted from women to young men.

Because the fuqaha lacked the psychological analytical tools that we have today, they saw these as disconnected problems. To them, the prevalence of sex with young men was further proof that women needed to be excluded, as society was so sexually perverse in their absence - imagine what it would be in their presence. From a contemporary psychological lens, however, the problems were not unrelated. Repressed sexuality was creating immense sexual dysfunction in society.

Secondly, it did not see the Rasul (SAW)’s inclusion of women in society at all levels as an equally important objective. The Rasul (SAW) engaged and empowered women at all levels, and this was as much a part of his social reconstruction of Arabian society as anything else. “Traditionalists” may point to single ahadith like the famous “deficient in intellect and religion,” but they fail to explain why the Rasul (SAW) included women in decision making both religious and worldly.

Western feminism, which negates the sexual effect of the female body on men, is living in a fantasy. And traditionalists, who negate the importance of female contribution to society and the negative effects of complete exclusion of women on the well-being of those women, also live in a fantasy. And, as always, the answer is only ever in the person of the Rasul (SAW).

A Return to the Madinan Society

The reality is that “fasad al-zaman,” when deployed in the woman question, is a dangerous argument built on flawed understandings. Deviation from Prophetic society is only good when it furthers a moral quality embedded in prophetic action without endangering other prophetic priorities.

Modesty in dress and action that is different than male modesty was prescribed by the Quran and confirmed and explained by the sunnah. This is incontrovertible fact. Inclusion of women in all areas of society is also upheld by the sunnah. This is incontrovertible fact. Both values must be understood to be true, and both must be understood as objectives within the Prophetic model.

Saying that traditional Muslim societies failed in this regard does not make one a kala-sahib nor a proponent of Western imperialism. One can critique feminist theory, imperialism, and classical/post-classical Muslim society all at the same time. We have to create a new logic of the role of women in society, one that doesn’t see modesty in opposition to public space. Rather, it is complementary: modesty enables - not negates - the contribution of women in society.