“By the steeds that run, with panting breath, and strike sparks of fire, and push home the charge in the morning, and raise the dust in clouds the while, and penetrate forthwith into the midst of the foe en masse…” (Quran 100)

And in the dust clouds following the warriors of Islam are the women shrouded in black. Their numbers are comprised of young and old, their spirits are as beautiful as lilies, their stories rival Gilgamesh. But you wouldn’t be able to tell: those black veils make them more like gaunt ghosts in the desert haze.

The purpose of this essay is to examine and criticize the relationship between Women and Islam.

It is necessary that I first explain what exactly I mean by Islam. Islam is a religion professed by around 1.6 billion people. In other words, Islam has around 1.6 billion interpretations. When I talk about Islam, I am referring to the Islam professed by her classical scholars: the prevailing attitudes and ideas that comprise the edifice of orthodoxy. In this way, I aim my criticism toward Islamic orthodoxy: the edifice in which the most Muslims reside, especially if they get caught in its labyrinthian corridors or are unaware of its many rooms. In less abstract terms, I anticipate that a great deal of Muslims have not reflected upon their religion such that they know the extent of its laws. Regardless, my criticism of Islamic orthodoxy remains valid in spite of their ignorance of them.

Consequently, it can be asked: “how can Muslims be orthodox if they are unaware of certain orthodox tenets?” I will answer via analogy: a Catholic may believe in the triune nature of his god and the institution of eucharist, but he may not be aware of the sanctity of Friday as a day of penance. In either case, what makes a believer is the practice of core beliefs. Is a man no longer a Catholic if he does not recognize Fridays as he should? –or when he renounces trinitarianism?

Next, I must dispel the notion that culture and religion are wholly distinct entities. The fact of the matter remains that they exist in tangent and affect one another greatly. Ideas are never really new: people blend pre-existing thought to make novel combinations under the pretense of divine revelation. Ideas stand on the shoulders of giants. It is foolish to isolate a religion from the culture that produces it [1]. As Alan Segal notes in his fabulous work of erudition, “Life After Death,” Christianity could not have existed if not for the Maccabean revolt laying the groundwork for Jewish apocalypticism creating a fertile breeding ground for messianic ideas [2].

As such, we find Arab culture consecrated under the teachings of Islam. The most prominent example is the Islamic endorsement of the purely lunar calendar used easily by nomadic societies untethered by the agricultural cycle. Conversely, agricultural civilizations supporting massive populations, such as the Egyptians, almost always relied on the consistency of the solar cycle [3]. I must highlight that the Islamic tradition, which touts itself as utterly immutable, overlooks the limited utility of the lunar calendar, especially with regards to planting and harvesting.

Another example of this phenomenon is found in the marriage ethics of Islam, which prohibits two unrelated adults from marriage if as infants they had breastfed from the same woman, such as a wet nurse. The belief of milk kinship is almost unique amongst the Arabs [4]. Again, a cultural practice is elevated to the status of eternal, immutable law.

Although it would be easy to construe Islam as merely Arab imperialism, we must guard ourselves from dishonesty and immerse ourselves in nuance. It is easy to forget the many thousands galvanized by Islam’s material successes and her radical promise of the equality of all adult males.

With the utter failure of the first four caliphs to establish a stable method of succession, Islamic polity had already become dynastic within 29 years of Muhammad’s death [5]. As the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads a number of years later, it became increasingly obvious the Iranian influences to Islamic government: rulers stylized themselves as sultans, delegating the day-to-day operations of the empire to viziers [6]. Moreover, it is argued that if the Arabs were so willing to appropriate entire legal structures, they must have been willing to appropriate local customs [7]. With this in mind, I will discuss the Islamic veil.

Citing the ambiguity of the Quran concerning what constitutes modesty (the veil is not explicitly mentioned) [8], apologists may argue that the veil is a product of cultural appropriation. This in fact true: the eastern Romans and Persians practiced full-face veiling of women of aristocratic background in varying degrees, a practice which had existed in one form or another in Mesopotamia since perhaps the days of Sumer, thousands of years earlier. The veil was undoubtedly a status symbol: only a woman of high rank could afford to wear such restrictive clothing. The common, working woman would find such a garment cumbersome in her daily duties [9].

It is easy to conjure the image of a hardy bedouin warrior, rich with war booty, imitating the opulence and grandeur of his conquered foes. Undoubtedly, he would find great pride that his wife did not have to toil. Coupled with the rigidity of gender roles as stipulated in the Quran, we can imagine that the quality of a woman’s life was more-often-than-not dependent on the economic status of her male relatives [10]. The logical extreme of the Quran’s exhortations is practiced in Saudi Arabia, where women are prevented from earning wages without the permission of a male relative [11].

We can find almost parallel practices in ancient China, where women of nobility were subject to the grim practice of footbinding. From infancy, the feet of a woman were bound so tightly that her arches would hideously compress, crippling her for life. As such, she was unable to work, let alone walk, and at the mercy of her numerous servants. Coupled with rigid Confucian gender roles, the quality of a woman’s life was more-often-than-not dependent on the economic status of her male relatives [12]. In either case, we find princesses chained to pedestals: mere objects.

To further understand the lack of economic agency women possess under Islam, it is necessary to discuss Islamic inheritance laws. Tackling the intricacies of Islamic laws of inheritance could fill volumes. As byzantine as they are, this work concerns itself with their relationship to women. As such, Islamic law, as a general principle, bequeaths a man twice the inheritance of a woman [13].

I have heard apologists argue that this ruling is sensible assuming that the economic security of a family is dependent on the earning ability of the male head of a family. Consider recent economic development in the United States: women are the primary breadwinner of 40% of households with children [14]. As previously stated, Islam touts itself as immutable: as such, her laws are so anachronistic they simply cannot be implemented today without perpetuating injustice. It is worth noting that recent developments in Tunisian civil law reflect modern sensibilities concerning these archaisms [15].

Islam further reinforces the lack of a woman’s agency as demonstrated by Islamic marriage law which stipulates that a woman cannot get married without a male arbitrator who speaks on her behalf, often her father [16]. The marriage agreement itself is called nikah, which, although generally accepted as “matrimony”, also suggests a physical (i.e. sexual) union [17]. Using the language of feminist literature, the Islamic marriage procedure can be described as a symbolic transfer of guardianship of a woman’s virginity from her father to her husband.

Although it is true that Islam allows women to decline a marriage proposal, her sexual rights are restricted to her husband. In fact, several traditions attributed to Muhammad curse women who refuse sexual intercourse [18]. Conversely, under Islamic law, men may have sexual intercourse with war captives [19], marry a non-Muslim [20], and practice polygamy [21].

Another point of contention I must address is the Quran’s enabling of domestic abuse. The verse at the center of the controversy is Surah Nisa, Verse 24.



Men are in charge of women by [right of] what God has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what God would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, God is ever Exalted and Grand.

In fairness, the Islamic tradition prevents the violent beating of disobedient wives [22]. I have heard scholars restrict the beating such that a husband may only beat his wife if the instrument of the beating is no wider than a toothbrush. Even if liberal interpretations are accepted, the fact of the matter remains that the Quran symbolically endorses a man’s absolute ownership of his wife, a trait shared by Catholic canon law.

The primacy of a man’s legal rights in marriage also extend to divorce: Muslim women are unable to initiate a divorce without a strict legal reason [23]. The woman must provide evidence to an Islamic court that her husband is neglectful for her divorce to be considered valid. In the event of a successful divorce, the woman must remain unmarried for three consecutive months. Muslim men face no such restrictions, and may marry and remarry with little difficulty.

Muslims in India have further deepened this inequality with the introduction of “triple talaq”, where a man may instantly divorce his wife after pronouncing the word ‘divorce’ thrice in succession. This practice has recently been declared unconstitutional by the Indian supreme court [24]. In fact, in recent weeks, prominent Muslim preachers and community leaders have been exploiting Islamic divorce jurisprudence for their predatory sexual ambitions [25]. Unsurprisingly, in an Islamic court, the testimony of two women is equivalent to that of one man [26].

It is plain to see that the Islamic tradition does not recognize the basic equality of the sexes. The symbol of this gross inequality is the veil. For the sake of argument, I assumed that the veil was appropriated by wealthy Muslims: as such it is alien to the Islamic tradition. Unfortunately, the veil is found in the depths of the Islamic tradition.

Of the companions of Muhammad, Umar bin Al-Khattab has always been viewed as one of the most steadfast in faith. The charge of misogyny is a great one, because it ascribes an active contempt of women far beyond sexism. That established, Umar’s contempt of women was so strong that it had influenced the divine revelation! Take this narration, compiled in Sahih Al Bukhari, the second canon of Islamic law [27]:

Narrated Aisha:

Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to God’s Messenger “Let your wives be veiled”, but he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi. Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam`a went out and she was a tall woman. Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda!” He (Umar) said so as he was anxious for some divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So God revealed the Verse of veiling.



Allow me to dissect that narration point by point: Umar strongly desired the veiling of women. The wives of the Muhammad used to go out at night to relieve themselves. Sauda, a particularly tall woman, was spotted by Umar while she was relieving herself. Shamelessly, Umar publicly calls her out, presumably in the company of others. As such, God reveals the verse of veiling– Al Ahzab 59.

This episode gives us an insight in Islamic gender relations: chastity is first and foremostly the duty of the woman. After all, Umar is left unpunished for his despicable behavior. In fact, he is rewarded. In light of this knowledge, one can only feel disgusted: Muslim women sincerely emulate the example of Muhammad’s wives as an act of faith. In every sense, Islam has always betrayed their sincerity.

What conclusions can we draw given this analysis of the Islamic tradition as it concerns its women? Foremostly, the orthodox Islamic tradition at once severely limits the legal, economic and sexual agency of women in an especially despicable manner.

Directing my attention to Western feminists: I distinctly remember watching a video from a famous internet personality, a hijabi, satirize how Western feminists perceive themselves as the savior of oppressed brown women. Modern values can be appreciated by anyone: as such, do not succumb yourselves to the racism of low expectations, Muslim women are not idiots. Publicly taking off your clothes or staging lewd demonstrations only serve as needless distraction from the powerful undercurrent present in Islamic cultures: a persistent and overbearing patriarchy that equates female chastity with family honor.

As for the veil: keep in mind that it is the most obvious symbol of modesty culture: its persistence over the ages is perpetuated not only by men, but by believing women who equate the veil with the command of God. Anything less than what God requires is whoredom. Eliminating the veil from public spaces does not undo the insular mindset of its defenders, it only masks (dare I say veils?) the immense difficulties of assimilation.

When Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote “The Women’s Bible” to challenge the traditional religious patriarchy, her fiery words called for the liberation of women not simply from day-to-day sexism, but from the notion that a loving deity would oppress one-half of his creation with so much contempt. If indeed culture and religion exist in tangent, altering one shall alter the other.

And to the women of Islam, I must ask you without rancor nor arrogance: when you pinned your scarf on your head today, did you realize that your agency belongs to others? And if you remain resolute, I challenge you to remove it: you shall find out what your society, let alone your family, thinks of you.

The next portion of my examination shall investigate Islamic reform in a general sense, where I shall examine if reform within Islam is even possible. In the words of Aisha, her story the cruel tragedy of being a child bride: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.”

We must enter the future with liberty on our lips. If liberty is to prevail, it cannot be veiled.