Women In Islam

Genesis
Before dealing with the position of women in Islam, it would be well to examine how the question of women's rights and their claim for complete equality with men came to the forefront in modern times and what the underlying causes were which added strength to women's claim for freedom and equality. Such an analysis is called for in order to ascertain how far women's movement in modern history issued out of a scientific and rational understanding of their powers, faculties and social functions and how far it represented merely a blind revolt against tradition, custom and artificial social restrictions and was prompted by desires untinged with altruism. It is necessary to make a dispassionate search for rational as well as non-rational factors in the modern women's movement, because otherwise our conclusions are likely to reflect the partisan spirit of one or the other side in the bitter controversy that has raged over women's demands.
An American writer, Mary R. Beard, sums up three divergent viewpoints on the subject of women's place in society in her book, Woman as Force in History. She says:
One is the view that 'the women's problem,' a definition respect­ing woman's place in society satisfactory to herself, can only be solved by complete equality with men, and that this equality can only be established under Communism. A second view is that woman must find her greatest happiness and contribute most to the state by limiting her ambitions to domesticity and still more narrowly to child-bearing, in order that the population rate may be high enough to keep a given nation secure against crowded societies on its borders, and strong enough within for aggressive action when desired against neighbors or more distant commu­nities; this is the ideology of Fascism. The third view is that woman must have the right to choose her way of life even to the point of self centered interests; this one among the ideologies of democracy.
Let us now see the actual historical circumstances that gave birth to these three viewpoints on the subject of women's place in society. We shall first deal with the democratic viewpoint, which is historically prior to the ideology of Fascism and Communism.
The eighteenth century was a period of great social and intellec­tual unrest in Europe. The rising intelligentsia and the middle classes of Western countries found themselves encumbered with a host of social barriers, economic restrictions and intellectual fetters which were blocking the path of progress in every direction. They were legacies of an age of Feudalism, which was already past. The feudal landlords, the Catholic Church with its vast power over men's bodies and souls and the Pope, who headed the Church organization, had a vested interest in perpetuating age-old customs and arti­ficial social restrictions which the new spirit was seeking to break through. In these circumstances, it was not unnatural that, for the rising bourgeoisie of European countries, freedom and liberty sho­uld acquire sanctity out of all proportion to their importance in the total scheme of human values. Thus, in the eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe, liberty and freedom became exclusive sovereign val­ues. The importance of all other ideals was lost sight of and the com­plementary values of order, discipline and responsibility, without which there could be no real liberty, were ignored and brushed aside as of no moment in the lives of nations. History bears witness to the fact that when some powerful idea takes root in a civilization, it permeates every sphere of human life and activity. The same thing happened with the notion of liberty which, extending from the do­main of politics, invaded the social sphere and expressed itself in a demand for the readjustment of sex relations. Powerful voices were raised on behalf of the rights of the female sex, which had long suffered from innumerable legal and social disabilities. Freedom and equality of the sexes became accepted principles. With the new social reformers.
In France, which was the centre of all revolutionary ideas, the Romantic school of literature and poetry first made an organized drive to popularize the ideal of sex equality. George Sand, who headed this school, was a woman of loose sexual morality. She proved unfaithful to her husband who was driven to separation. Thereafter she led the life of a libertine forming promiscuous sexual relations with a number of men, among whom was Alfred Musse, a French poet of some renown. In her novels, Lelia and Jacques, she severely criticized the institution of marriage and advocated free love. George Sand was followed by another group of poets, novelists and dramatists among whom Alexander Dumas and Al­fred Naquet stand out as the most prominent. These writers laid emphasis on the natural birthright of men and women to indulge in free sexual relations without the encumbrances of marriage. Men­tion must also be made of Mary Wollstencraft who wrote her book, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, in 1792. She reflected a more rational outlook, which was colored more by the altruistic desire to serve the cause of women than open the floodgates of license. In this pioneer work she protested against the unjust and unequal treatment of women and condemned the whole system of law and custom that governed the relations of men and women. Her influence on the women's movement in France was deep and wides­pread. These tendencies were reinforced by the Neo-Malthusian movement in England and France, which sought to limit the growth of population by popularizing the use of contraceptives. The Indus­trial Revolution in England, by throwing upon the crowded cities a vast army of peasants and rural craftsmen, unable to support their families, further accentuated this process and brought women into the economic field for the first time in history. The radicals and phi­lanthropists of the 'fifties and 'sixties like Robert Owen, Ruskin, Bentham and John Stuart Mill gave further impetus to the women's movement. In 1861 Mill wrote his famous book Subjection of Wo­men in which he argued with great precision and logic that the subjection of women was the product of age-long custom and did not testify to any inherent inferiority in the female sex. Mill conten­ded that the distinctions between men and women which went to snow the inferiority of women in the domains of mental and intelle­ctual productions were not natural but artificial, that is, a product of •objecting environment. The education and external circumstances in which women were being brought up were, according to him, respon­sible for their seeming inferiority; all other talk of her innate inferi­ority, he pointed out, was logical perversion and psychological mis­understanding. Under the stress of these social changes and intellec­tual movements, family ties loosened and domesticity lost its import­ance for women who were forced into the economic field by circums­tances beyond their control. The ideal of sex equality came nearer fulfillment than ever, though in ways which boded ill for the happi­ness of individuals and the moral health of the community. In the Great War of 1914, a vast majority of the male population in European countries had to join the war services and many of the non-military occupations, hitherto regarded as the closed preserve of the male sex, were thrown open to women who became more and more convinced of their ability to compete with men on equal terms in all fields of life.
In 1941 when America entered the Second World War, millions of American women were taken into the armed forces, placed in uniform, disciplined by officers of their own sex working under naval and military authorities, accorded official ranking and honored with decorations for bravery under fire; to release men for fighting, thousands of uniformed women worked as secretaries, clerks and officials. With skill and courage, women served as doc­tors and nurses in the battle areas and in war hospitals at home; and many were killed at the fronts while working near or under fire. In all the drives to raise money in aid of the armed services, American women assumed leadership and served in the ranks. They labored to uphold the morale of the services at home and abroad. They toured the war areas and fronts as entertainers of the men under arms. They entered the war-production plants by millions and made possible the output of munitions and other war supplies on a scale that astounded the whole industrial world.
At the end of the war, American men and women alike in general hoped for a return to civilian life, and this meant a heated debate over public policies to be adopted with regard to 'equality of rights' in the distribution of employments, in the competition for places and rewards in economy and society. The old debate over women's place in society was reopened with added intensity. When in 1944 the War Department of United States issued its booklets for the education of soldiers at round table forums, it included one manual to invite a pointed argument: 'Do you want your wife to work after the war ?' In this discussion one side argued that times have changed, that it is good and fitting for women to work, that they are competent in all kinds of jobs, hanker after economic indepen­dence, and are likely to hang on to a cash nexus for dear life. On the other side were those who argued that woman's place is in the home, that her function is childbearing and rearing, and that men will not stand her competition with returned veterans.
So far we have examined the circumstances in which the demo­cratic ideal of equality of sexes arose and gathered strength. Now let us turn to the Communist ideal. The leader of Communism in Russia, V.I. Lenin, was ably supported and encouraged through­out his period of struggle by his wife, Krupskaya. When Lenin climbed to power in Russia, Krupskaya, who had been a zealous champion of sex equality, helped to drive home the issue of women's rights as one of the basic issues of the revolution.
Lenin and his wife both knew very well that the Communist movement could have little prospect of success without the active support .of women. And to win their full support, recognition of their right to full participation in the Communist regime was immediately given. In a speech delivered in September 1919 at the Fourth Moscow City Conference, Lenin declared: 'The Soviet Government has applied democracy to a greater extent than any other country, by the fact that in its laws not the slightest hint of any inferiority of women is left! I repeat, not a single state and no democratic legislation has done even half of what the Soviet Government did for women in the very first months of its exis­tence.' In a conversation with Klara Zelkin, a prominent German socialist, Lenin elaborated the doctrine that 'real freedom for women is possible only through Communism.' Women must appre­ciate this and throw their energy into the Bolshevik Revolution, he insisted. 'The Communist women's movement must itself be a mass movement, a part of the general mass movement. There can be no real mass movement without women. Unless millions of women are with us we cannot exercise the proletarian dictatorship, cannot construct on Communist lines. We must find out our way to them, we must study and try to find that way.' In Krupskaya's introduction to a pamphlet by Lenin on Women and Society, the double power of women's revolutionary agitation and the Commu­nist theory of its underlying importance were brought out. Krups-**ya wrote, 'Ever since the beginning of the Soviet rule, equal rights for women have been an object of interest, not only for women but for men as well.' As a result of these ideas, which im­pressed themselves on youthful minds, Russian women in great numbers agitated and organized at home and abroad for the realization of their objects. They secured positions in Russia with the secret police and both judged and punished opponents of the Communist Party. After German troops invaded Russia, women who were not members of the Communist Party rushed like mem­bers of the Party to defend their country. The Russian women, Communists as well as non-Communists, engaged in all phases of armed combat with the foe.
Like the Russian Soviet Revolution, the Fascist Revolution in Italy, Germany and Spain was also confronted with the necessity of winning women's support and their active co-operation in the struggle for Fascist ascendancy. Professor Maria Castellan explained the Fascist attitude to women! in a volume on Italian Women, Past and Present, in which she said, 'Fascism recognizes women as a part of the life-force of the country, laying down a division of duties between the two sexes, without putting obstacles in the way of those women who by their intellectual gifts can reach the highest positions.' Adolf Hitler, leader of the German Nazis, formulated the attitude of his movement towards women in a speech at Nuremburg on 15 September 1934, when he said, 'Woman has her battlefield. With each child that she brings to the nation, she fights her fights for the nation.' Hitler and Goebbels suppressed such women as Sophie Rogge-Boerner, who called for the military training of women, in favor of women who devo­ted their strength and interest to childbearing. Young women in large numbers responded enthusiastically to indoctrination on this point and entered the numerous maternity homes founded by the Nazis.
We have seen how the Democratic, Communist and Fascist viewpoints about the rights of women and their place in society were in part moulded by certain historical conditions and in part by political expediency designed to secure a larger following by enlisting the support of women. As far as the democratic viewpoint is concerned, it was free from the taint of political expediency but there was present in it from the very beginning a negative urge to sweep away age-long • restrictions. Democracy failed, as in other fields, to develop a positive doctrine of women's rights and duties and confined itself to the removal of old abuses.
In contrast with the above-mentioned attitudes towards the problem of sex relations, Islamic teachings in regard to the posi­tion of women can be traced to neither of these sources. There was no political necessity for the Prophet of Islam to gain the favour of the fair sex, because the social conditions of Arabia were such that women's influence on the larger affairs of life was bound to be negligible. Nor was the Prophet of Islam confronted by the neces­sity of enlisting women for fighting a national war of defence or aggression against foreign countries. Therefore, unlike Hitler and Mussolini, he had no motive to define women's rights and duties with an eye on the requirements of military defence or aggression. Again, in contrast to democracy, which was the outcome of a negative urge to sweep away old restrictions that blocked the way to progress, Islam was more concerned with bringing some sort of discipline to a race of wild, freedom-loving Arabs who knew no respect for law and order and obeyed no central authority. The problem, therefore, for Islam was not so much the loosening of artificial bonds, as creating law, order and discipline among a people steeped in license and unacquainted with healthy social or moral restrictions. For all these reasons, Islam treated the question of sex equality and women's rights on its own merits and defined its attitude to sex relations on the basis of human nature rightly interpreted. Islamic teachings on this subject, therefore, spring from the ultimate facts of human nature in its social context. Mili­tary necessity, political expediency or merely blind revolt against the past did not in any way affect Islam's solution of the sex problem.
The question of the relationship between man and woman and their respective rights and duties is really a part of the larger socio-economic problem of man. Its solution depends on the way in which this larger problem is dealt with by a civilisation. It is wrong, therefore, to study the question of woman's rights and her place in society in isolation from the total context of human relationships >n all their aspects. Before we pass any judgment on the particular way in which a civilisation deals with the sex problem, we should consider its total approach to human existence, so as to enable us to view its specific solution in their larger and total setting. But for this, we shall have to define the basic attitude of a civilisation towards life in general. In the next chapter, therefore, we shall attempt to define the basic approach of Islam towards human existence, in contrast with that of the Western civilisation, because this approach has decisive bearing on the way in which Islam grappled with the problem of sex equality and the rights • women.
Basic Attitudes
The Holy Qur’an in the following verses has defined Islamic attitude towards life:
Blessed is He in Whose hands is the Kingdom and He has power over all things, Who created Death and Life that He may try you—which of you is best in conduct (Ixvii. 1-2).
And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and His throne was on water that He may try you—which of you is best in conduct (xi. 7).
Lo! He produced creation, then reproduced it that He may with justice recompense those who believe and do good works (x. 4).
Life, for the individual, according to the above verses, is an opportunity, provided by Nature, to bring out the best and most spiritual in him by being placed within a network of human rela­tionships which constantly put him on trial in respect of his social sympathies and sense of justice towards his fellow-men. The pur­pose of life, therefore, is the spiritual betterment of man. Nature secures this end by placing individuals in a social situation where they may develop their altruistic self and restrain their egoistic desires. The response of the individual to the requirements of-this •situation is a measure of his spiritual progress and an index of his success or failure in the trial spoken of by the Holy Qur'an. That is clear from the verses quoted above that Islamic civilisation by its mechanical efficiency, technical progress or pro­ductive capacity. A society may achieve phenomenal success in any or all of these aspects and still remain spiritually bankrupt, if in the distribution of material wealth and the products of technical development, it betrays an insufficient regard for social justice and human equality. On the other hand, there may be civilisations lacking in material productivity, yet marked by a high sense of fellow-feeling and greater regard for human values. The test of a civilisation, from the Quranic viewpoint, lies in the harmony of relations between its component parts, whether horizontally as affecting the different national groups, which inhabit its sphere of influence, or vertically as reflected in the mutual attitude of the different economic classes whose total productive efforts sustain its material existence. That is the meaning of the Quranic statement that 'God created Death and Life in order to try which of you is best in conduct.' The primary value of civilisation, according to this attitude, lies in the moral conduct of its individuals as reflect­ed in their beliefs, institutions and class and sex relations, etc. Here, and not in its mechanical development and technical efficiency, should be sought the criterion of its success or failure.
That social conduct in its various manifestations is the main con­cern of the religious spirit, has been further emphasized by the Holy Qur'an in the following verses:
The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well-bred horses and cattle and tilth is made to seem fair to men: this is the provision of the life of the lower level, and Allah is He with Whom is the higher goal (of life).
Say: Shall I tell you of what is better than these? For those who guard (against evil) are Gardens with their Lord, beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them, and pure mates and Allah's pleasure: and Allah sees His servants.
Those who say: Our Lord! surely we believe, therefore forgive us our faults and keep us from the chastisement of fire.
The patient and the truthful, and the obedient, and those who spend (benevolently) and those who ask for forgiveness in the morning times (iii. 13-16).
Here the Holy Qur'an presents two alternative ways of life.


First, the lower way, which is distinguished by the predominance of acquisitive desires, the love of sexual pleasure, the pride of family, wealth and other kinds of material acquisitions and, secondly, the life of creative social sympathies marked by the pur­suit of higher ideals which call forth our powers of patience, philanthropy, and remind us of our duties to our fellow-men. The Holy Qur'an declares its preference for this latter way of life and holds out the prospect of a rich reward for those who follow it. Here again Islam emphasizes social values other than those, which lead merely to .greater abundance of material goods without in any way ennobling and harmonizing human relations.
The following statement provides further evidence of this attitude towards human social existence:
Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made, because they are oppressed. . .those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause. . .those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-due and enjoin good and forbid evil (xxii. 39-40).
The Holy Qur'an describes here the distinctive qualities of a party, which comes into power as the result of a successful struggle against the forces of evil. What is significant is that we miss here any emphasis on purely physical valour, military preparedness, technical efficiency and mechanical skill—qualities which, by any test of fitness, are necessary for those who wish to come out successful in a military struggle. Instead, the virtues recommended by the Holy Qur'an are those which tend to harmonise and en­noble human relations—deference to the claims of the downtrod­den, humility in a state of power and success manifested in efforts to establish prayers, and an active desire to stamp out evil and injustice in all forms, a reforming zeal to encourage virtuous behaviour leading towards improved human relations. For a group engaged in a life-and-death struggle for survival, these qualities seem rather inappropriate, since a state of struggle calls for just the opposite qualities' of physical valour, mechanical efficiency and technical superiority. The only explanation for this seeming paradox is that, according to the Holy Qur'an, the latter virtues are the necessary but secondary products of a struggle whose inspiration comes exclusively from a spiritual vision of life The main object of human existence is the continuing improvement of human relation­ships. But this object requires for its successful accomplishment the secondary qualities of material strength and mechanical effi­ciency, etc. A civilisation which inverts this natural order and sets up material progress and technical skill, etc., as ends in themselves runs the grave risk of disintegration from within by social conflicts arising from the deteriorating relations of its component parts.
In passing judgment on Islamic teachings with regard to sex relations and the ideal of sex equality, it is necessary to keep in mind this aspect of the matter. As against Western civilisation which regards the abundance of material wealth, technical skill and mechanical efficiency as of primary importance and which sub­ordinates, as of instrumental value and secondary importance, the ideal of social justice and other spiritual values, Islam puts primary emphasis on just those qualities of the soul which lead to greater social harmony and prevent class conflicts. Islam does not belittle material wealth and the human qualities, which tend to increase it. They are allowed only a rank of secondary importance. This difference in the two systems of values alters the perspective in which human and social problems are tackled respectively by Islam and Western civilisation. Islamic civilisation stands midway between ancient ascetic cultures, which negated life and matter and looked upon the things of this world as having a soul-degrading effect, and the materialistic culture of the modern West, which has turned material wealth and economic prosperity into objects of idolatrous worship. From the Islamic viewpoint, economic wealth and the qualities, which help its furtherance, are good only in so far as they subserve spiritual interests and make for greater social harmony. When raised to the level, of primary importance, they become the agents of the devil.
Islam and the Ideal of Sex Equality
Equality is a term, which is hard to define. There is a sense in which all human beings are equal, but in actual life, we find that no two human’ beings are really equal in all respects. There are; differences of tastes, temperaments, faculties, powers and outlook; all of which cannot be traced to differences of environment or up­bringing. It is apparent that the rights and duties of men and their social position flow from these inborn differences. In spite of the fundamental and essential unity offal human beings, it is impqs-sible in practice to level down all differences and inequalities, because some of them are the outcome of native differences. In­equality leads to injustice and oppression only where artificial impediments, whether in the shape of laws and customs or tradi­tions, are super-added to natural inequalities so as to prevent tnen and women from developing their native capacities to the full* It is the task of religion, state and law to remove all hindrances to human development and create an environment where only natural inborn differences and inequalities may fix a man's station in life.
The ideal of sex equality should also be studied (rom the same angle. If by sex equality is meant that artificial cusjoras^ -traditions , and laws which prevent the female sex from playing itrfultpart in collective life and developing its inherent capacities to the maxi­mum extent should be removed out of the way, there is hardly any individual of sound understanding who would disagree. But if «ex equality means that the type of mental and bodily faculties, : psychological make-up and temperamental equipment possessed by the two sexes is identically the same and that men and women exist and have their being not as complements to each other but as competitors and rivals in a common sphere of action, then it is an ideal about which most people would disagree. As we shall discuss later, even modern writers and specialists on sex are not agreed on 'this point.
As far as the Holy Qur'an is concerned, it promulgated the doctrine of human equality, including sex equality, in a compre­hensive verse which negates all inequalities due to sex, race, colour, nationality, caste or tribe. Says the Qur'an:
O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two many men and women" (iv. 1).
This is a declaration in plain terms that, in essential human dignity and fundamental rights, all human beings of whatever sex or race or nationality stand on a footing of equality, because they all ultimately spring from a single source.
When Islam appeared in Arabia, women held a very low posi­tion in society. They were treated not only as social inferiors but like slaves and chattel. When a man having many wives died, the latter were inherited by his sons like movable property. It was a mark of dishonour for any man to have a daughter, and many preferred to bury alive their female children rather than face social opprobrium. It was Islam and the teachings of the Holy Prophet which dispelled the prevailing idea that women were inferior to men or that female children deserved any treatment different from that meted out to male issues. The Qur'an asserted the dignity of women by declaring:
They are an apparel for you and you are an apparel for them (ii. 188).
Here, again, the Qur'an lent support to the basic equality of women and men by declaring that each sex complements the other, and neither is inferior in status and dignity. The word 'apparel' may be interpreted to mean either 'protection' or 'dignity and beauty'. The verse would mean, therefore, that men and women protect each other from sin and dishonour or it may mean that
woman lends dignity and adds beauty to the existence of man, as man does to that of woman. Similarly, the Qur'an heaped scorn on the Arabs' traditional attitude towards the female sex in the following verses:
And when a. daughter is announced to one of them his face be­comes dark and he is full of wrath. He hides himself from the people, because of that which is announced to him. Shall he keep it with disgrace or bury it (alive) in dust? Now surely evil is what they judge (xvi. 58-59).
With a view to contradicting the notion that women have no rights, the Qur'an came out with the plain and unambiguous decla­ration:
They have rights similar to those against them, in a just manner (ii. 228).
In consonance with this spirit of equality the Prophet of Islam constantly reminded his followers that female children should be treated exactly in the same manner as male issues. Prior to Islam daughters were looked upon with disfavour and as a kind of eco­nomic and social burden. The result was that male members of the f.a mily enjoyed a respect which was denied to those of the fair sex. There were marked differences in the treatment and upbringing of sons and daughters. All this was discouraged by the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) who upheld the rights of female children and insisted on their being treated on a footing of equality. For exam­ple, according to a report of Ibn 'Abbas, the Prophet's cousin, he is said to have declared: 'If a daughter is born to a man and he brings her up affectionately, shows her no disrespect and treats her in the same manner as he treats his sons, the Lord will reward him with paradise' (Konz al-'Ummal, p. 277). According to another report from Anas b. Malik, the Prophet said: 'Girls are models of affection and sympathy and a blessing to the family. If a'person has one daughter, God will screen him from the fire of the hell owing to his daughter; if he has two daughters, God will admit him to paradise; if he has three, God will exempt him from the obli­gations of charity and Jehad' (ibid.). Abu Hurairah, a revered companion of the Prophet, says: 'The Prophet of God said that if a person has three daughters whom he provides for and brings up, God will surely reward him with paradise.' According to 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, the Prophet is reported to have said: 'If a daughter is born to a person and he brings her up, gives her a good education and trains her in the arts of life, I shall myself stand between him and hell-fire' (ibid.). Not content with moral exhortations intended to assert the equal rights of free women, the Prophet went so far as to declare: 'A person who has a female slave in his charge and takes steps to give her a sound education and trains her in arts and culture, and then frees her and marries her, he will be doubly rewarded' (Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab al-Nikah).
The Holy Qur'an has at more than one place made it plain that in regard to moral -and spiritual development, men and women stand on a level of perfect equality. There are no limits to the moral progress of a woman as that of a man. For example, the Holy Qur'an says:
Men shall have-the benefit of what they achieve and acquire and womea shall have the benefit of that which they similarly achieve and acquire (iv. 32).
And again:
And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, and he or she is a believer, these shall enter the garden and they shall not be dealt with a jot unjustly (iv. 124).
In regard to religious duties, the Qur'an recognises no distinc­tion between men and women. Their obligations towards God and man are similar in many respects, and, therefore, their position and status in the eyes of God are also not dissimilar. Says the Qur'an:
And as for the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them, surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Allah has promised to the believing men and the believing women gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them, and goodly dwelling in gardens of perpetual abode; and the best of all is Allah's goodly pleasure; thaV is the grand achievement (ix. 71-72).
It follows that if men and women have equal duties in regard to prayers, the payment of poor-tax and, most of all, in the enjoining of good and the forbidding of evil in all their social, economic and political forms, it is necessary that they should have equal educa­tional opportunities. How can a woman enjoin the good in politics or forbid men from bad politics, how can she raise her voice against ruinous economic policies or advocate beneficial economic reforms, if she is not mentally and spiritually well equipped for the supreme religious duty? It should also be remembered that Islam makes no distinction between secular duties and religious duties. According to the teachings of Islam, all duties, whether they con­cern politics, economics or social well-being in general, are religious duties, in no way different from prayers, fasts and the organisation of social charity. It is, therefore, a plain deduction from the above verses that men and women should be regarded as equal in the fields of politics, economics and education, etc., and.-consistent with the discharge of their special responsibilities in their particular spheres, they should receive equal rights in all these fields of action.
The Prophet not only enunciated this general doctrine of sex equality involving equal educational opportunities but also practised it. Innumerable are the traditions of the Prophet which show that women, like men, used to come freely in the presence of the Pro­phet for putting questions and addressing inquiries on all sorts of social, religious and economic matters. The Prophet used to answer their queries and enlighten them on all live issues. Arabia, in parti­cular, and the world in general, was so backward in those days that there were no organised educational institutions even for boys, not to speak of girls. So the Islamic attitude towards female education can be studied only from the casual remarks of the Prophet and his permission to women to approach him freely for inquiries on matters of religious, economic and social importance. There is no doubt that the Prophet encouraged women in the spirit of understanding and inquiry. His wife, 'Ayeshah, was herself a very learned woman, and during the reign of the first four Caliphs her advice, even on political matters, was eagerly sought by the rulers of Islam. On Islamic jurisprudence she was and is still regarded as a great authority. In his collection of traditions, Muslim reports that 'Ayeshah praised the women of Ansar for their spirit of inquiry and learning, saying, 'How praise-worthy are the women of Ansar that their modesty does not prevent them from attempts at learning and the acquisition of knowledge' (Mus­lim, Sahih, Kitab al-Taharat). This statement was occasioned by the fact that the women of Ansar were more eager than others to learn from the Prophet and they used to address frequent inquiries to him. Instead of discouraging them, the wife of the Holy Prophet characterises as highly praise-worthy their eagerness for learning and inquiry.
The Holy Qur'an further stresses the equality of women in re­gard to the possibilities of spiritual progress by quoting from history the examples of women who rose to spiritual eminence by their own efforts:
And Allah sets forth an example to those who believe—the wife of Pharaoh when she said: My Lord, build for me a house with Thee in the Garden and deliver me from Pharaoh and his doings, and deliver me from the unjust people.
And Mary, the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed unto her of Our inspiration, and she accepted the truth of the words of her Lord and His Books, and she was of the obedient one (Ixvi. 11-12).
The Holy Qur'an further declares that women have been the recipient of special gifts from God so that nothing stands in the way of their reaching the highest pinnacle of spiritual progress:
And We revealed to the mother of Moses (xxyiii. 7).
And (remember) when the angels said: O Mary, surely Allah hath chosen thee and purified .thee and selected thee (for His special blessing) of all the women of the world (iii. 41).
Despite the great stress it has laid on the essential and funda­mental equality of men and women and their equal rights in all matters of vital concern, the Holy Qur'an does not believe in that conception of sex equality which ignores the natural differen­ces, special aptitudes and specific powers and faculties of men and women with the resulting fitness of men for some kinds of work and the equal fitness of women for other types of activity. On the whole the Holy Qur'an regards men and women as complementary to each other, one sex making up what the other lacks. This is evident from the following verses of the Holy Qur'an which under­line the purposive nature of sex differences:
He it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same (kind) did He make his mate, that he might incline to her
(vii. 189).
And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves, so that you may find quiet of mind in them and He put between you love and compassion (xxx. 21).
Men are the maintainers of women because of that excellence which Allah has given to some of them over others and because they spend out of their property (iv. 34).
And they (women) have rights similar to those against them in a just manner and the men are a degree above them (ii. 228).
The main points to be noted here are, first, that the female sex must be a source of comfort and peace of mind to its male counterpart; secondly, that men and women excel each other or are superior to each other in some respects and that in the general affairs of life men are partially, but not absolutely, superior to women. These general statements involve certain indirect conclu­sions which are of the greatest importance to social happiness. The Qur'an, it seems, first sets forth a general doctrine of sex equality and then qualifies and defines it with the assertion that this is not a bald and undifferentiated equality but one involving special rights and duties both for men and women, within the framework of their special responsibilities: both se ices are absolutely equal to each other.
Now, what are the conclusions to be drawn from the qualifica­tions mentioned by the Holy Qur'an? It is emphasised by the Holy Book that the female sex is a source of comfort and quietness of mind to the male sex. This can happen only if men and women are united in a more or less permanent bond of interests which finds expression in a life planned and based on some idea of the future, requires them to co-operate and not to compete, and integrates them as complements in an ordered whole. These considerations involve a pattern of life of which Marriage, Family and Children are the most important factors because there can be no other abiding interest to hold together two individuals of different sexes. A mere community of intellectual interests or identity of special aptitudes is an insufficient bond even for that microscopic minority to whom these things jnatter most. For the large majority of men and women these can hardly provide any link unless they are sup­ported and strengthened by the desire for family life and children. It is obvious, therefore, that Islam does not envisage any social pattern from which family and children have been excluded, and since these two factors involve special functions for women and special responsibilities for men, equality of rights in Islam means an equality which is adjusted to and qualified by the special duties and responsibilities of each sex.
Again, the Qur'an recognises the superiority of both sexes over each other in some respects. To the extent that men are superior to women and women to men in certain matters, the doctrine of equality must be qualified with due regard to natural facts. About the special position of men, the Qur'an makes two statements. First, that men are the supporters or sustainers of women in an economic sense. But it must be noted that this implies no natural superiority on the part of men, nor any inherent inferiority of women, because it is a purely economic arrangement dictated by natural necessities. The Qur'an, however, accords a slight superio­rity to men in general by saying that men are a degree superior to women. This superiority of men relates both to the domestic and political fields. In domestic life, final authority must rest with one sex or the other. There cannot be two co-equal authorities here as elsewhere. Singularly, in the political field also final decisions should rest with men in general, because men are by nature gifted with a wider vision and also because their comparative freedom from certain natural limitations, which absorb a considerable amount of female time and energy, enables them to devote more attention to political affairs.
Having stated the Islamic conception of sex equality, we shall examine whether the qualifications made by Islam to the general doctrine of sex equality find any support from modern writers on the subject of sex. The question ultimately resolves itself into one of differences between men and women in regard to their faculties, powers, aptitudes and temperaments. If there are such differences
and dividing lines, then the doctrine of perfect sex equality can be true only with the qualifications set forth by the Holy Qur'an, and to the extent of these qualifications there ought to follow a scheme of life in which men and women, apart from general and equal rights and duties, must be assigned special rights and exclusive responsibilities. Many modern writers on sex would generally agree with the above proposition. For example, Dr. Alexis Carrel, a French Nobel Prize winner, says in his famous book, Man the Un­known:
The differences existing between man and woman are of a mere fundamental nature. They are caused by the very structure of the tissues and by the impregnation of the entire organism with specific chemical substances secreted by the ovary. Ignor­ance of these fundamental facts has led the promoters of femi­nism to believe that both sexes should have the same responsibili­ties. In reality, woman differs profoundly from man. Every one of the cells of her body bears the mark of her sex. The same is true of her organs and, above all, of her nervous system. Women should develop their aptitudes in males. Their part in the pro­gress of civilization is higher than that of men. They should not abandon their special functions.
There are a large number of equality enthusiasts among us now who are either unwilling to recognise such radical differences bet­ween the two sexes or, accepting them grudgingly, insist on their removal and obliteration by conscious. efforts. What these peo­ple fail to note is that the peace of mind and comfort on which the Qur'an has laid stress in the relations between the two sexes is the outcome of these very differences. If they could possibly be remov­ed, sex life and marriage would lose much of their charm. On this point we would quote the American writer, Margaret Mead, who says in her book, Male and Female:
Our tendency at present is to minimize all these differences in learning, in rhythm, in type and timing of rewards, and at most to try to obliterate particular differences that are seen as handi­caps on one sex. If boys are harder to train, train them harder; if girls grow faster than boys, separate them, so the boys would not be damaged; women have a little less strength than men, invent machines so that they can still do the same work. But every adjustment that minimizes a difference, a vulnerability, in one sex, a differential strength in the other, diminishes their possibi­lity of complementing each other, and corresponds — symboli­cally — to sealing off the constructive receptivity of the female and the vigorous outgoing constructive activity of the male, muting them both in the end to the duller version of human life, in which each is denied the fulness of humanity that each might have had. Guard each sex in its vulnerable moments; we must protect and cherish them through the crises that sometimes are harder for one sex than for the other. But as we guard, we may also keep the differences. Simply compensating for differences is in the end a form of denial.
This sound advice of a writer who herself happens to he a woman and belongs to an advanced country of the West must serve as an eye-opener to those extremists who, in their blind enthusiasm for sex equality, are advocating all sorts of ridiculous reforms and denying the beneficial effects of sex differences as well as the complementary position of man and woman in respect of each other.
This same American writer, commenting on the increasing entry of women in professional field (of course, under a wrong concep­tion of sex equality) further remarks: 'It is of very doubtful value to enlist the gifts of women if bringing women into fields that have been defined as male frightens the men, unsexes the women, muffles and distorts the contribution the women could make, either because their presence excludes men from the occupation or be­cause it changes the quality of the men who enter.'
It would seem, then, that the doctrine of sex equality cannot be pushed to a point where it means that men and women are equally fit for all fields of employment, or that the indiscriminate entry of women in the professional fields would have no undesirable social effects.
In regard to the Quranic statement that men and women excel each other in some respects and are, therefore, unequal to that extent, we shall quote another American woman writer, Mary B. Beard, who gives a very interesting account of the discussions held on this point by American psychologists, in her book, Woman as Force in History. She writes:

At its ninth spring meeting the Eastern Branch of the American Psychological Association held sessions on the attitude of men and women towards men.
The meeting listed for two days and nearly one thousand per­sons were reported attending its session. The main discussion revolved round the results of a questionnaire submitted to an equal number of men and women. By means of this survey designed to explore opinions of men and women about women, the conclusion was reached by its promoters that both sexes were in a remarkable agreement in favour of equal social rights for both sexes and a wide disagreement in evaluating the emotio­nal stability and originality of women.
In the discussion which followed, a statement of the survey's findings, men and women participated and, according to newspaper accounts, 'seven out of every ten men, and an equal proportion of women, believed that men were less influenced by emotion than women in their judgments.' To the statement that 'women are more interested in the trivial things of life than men,' 91.7 per cent of the men gave their assent and 92.1 per cent of the women.
The discovery or assumption that women differ from men governed discussions of the subject by members of the Psychologi­cal Association which assembled at Palo Alto a few years ago, and much importance was attached to glandular differentiations.
'What is the psychological difference between a boy and a girl?' was the question on which they attempted to focus their remarks. The question had been before the members of the Association for meditation in advance of this meeting. Indeed, a report, framed by two men and one woman of Stanford University, was ready for the guidance of the discussion. Its burden was that the 'original constitutional' equipment of girls and boys differs. And in women, it asserted, the whole glandular system is 'more precarious* than in men. But mental balance is 'superior in the male*. Whys and where­fores of the divergence in mental balance were 'probably* tracea­ble to the basic physical differences, some speakers averred. As the discussion was reported in the Press, its upshot was the consensus that 'women in general have made no relative progress against mental irregularities since they began throwing off conventional restraints at high speed.'
Now, if the above conclusions are true, it. means that men, being less amenable to emotional influences and possessing a more stable mental balance, are better fitted for political activity which requires calm reasoning and lesser susceptibility to emotional influences. Similarly, these conclusions also establish the fact that, being mentally more stable, men are bound to remain superior in intellectual pursuits which require persistent and continuous work. These facts make it clear that the ideal of sex equality cannot be accepted without important qualifications and reservations based on the ultimate facts of the psychology and nature of the two sexes.
Let us now see what Havelock Ellis, one of the greatest modern authorities on the psychology of sex, has to say about the special nature and characteristics of woman. In Man and Woman, Havelock Ellis has considered impartially a great amount of available data as to the intellectual and other capacities of the two sexes. He says that abstract thought in woman is, on the whole, marked by a cer­tain docility and receptiveness. Even in trivial matters, • he says, the average woman accepts statements and opinions more easily than a man; and in more serious matters, 'she is prepared to die for a statement or an opinion, provided it is uttered with such autho­rity and action that her emotional nature is sufficiently thrilled'. Further, Ellis points out that woman craves more for sympathy than man and that she has not the same sturdy independence like him. This is a statement which lends support to the Quranic view that men are the maintainers of women, because even if it were possible for all women to become economically independent of men, their emotional nature and craving for sympathy would in­volve most of them in partial dependence on men. In man, on the other hand, there is no such gravitating force to 'incline him towards the fair sex, unless it be sexual attraction or the bond of children. Ellis illustrates his statement on this special characteristic of women by giving a list of famous women of genius who have put forth their best efforts only in sympathetic and intimate asso­ciation with another person of the male sex. Thus Madame Curie, the most distinguished woman of science in modern times, was the wife of a distinguished scientific man who shared in her investiga­tions. Mrs Browning wrote her finest poems after she knew Robert Browning. The whole of George Eliot's fiction and other imagina­tive work was written in the company of a man (J.H. Lewis) who shared her scientific as well as literary tastes.
Taken as a whole, Havelock Ellis considers that the qualities of intelligence in men and women are not of identical character or value; but there is no question of superiority or inferiority. Their respective intellectual qualities fairly balance each other. Thus men, he says, are better able to apply what they have learnt; they are much more inclined to support what they have learnt by reflection or further investigation. They have a precise knowledge in their own department, are without doubt more apt to supplement the prescribed course of reading by independent scientific research, take more interest in scientific pursuits and have greater power of observation. Women, on the other hand, dislike the essentially intellectual process of analysis, because, says Ellis, they instincti­vely feel that 'analysis may possibly destroy the emotional comple­xes by which they are largely moved and which appeal to them*. This is why women do not favour rigid rules, principles and abstr­act propositions. They are more impulsive and believe in its right-ness. These are not all defects of the feminine mind, says Ellis; they are innate sexual differences pointing to the ineptitude of women for science, however numerous and brilliant the exceptions.
Those characteristics, in his opinion, are 'probably correlated with instinctive and emotional qualities which may fairly be regar­ded as organic'. Ellis then proves that emotion is not, as popularly supposed, & purely mental phenomenon. It has its reactions upon man's vascular and muscular system, however self-controlled a man may be. 'No amount of self-control on coarser expressions of emotion alters the case, for even to unscientific inspection the passion of the self-controlled man reveals itself by some quiver of muscle, some quickening of the heartbeat.' Here he lays down an important truth that emotion depends on physical organisation. Woman's heart is easily excited under the influence of stimuli by which man's heart in a state of health is unaffected. And he gives a proof of the greater excitability of woman's heart by^ pointing out that there. is a distinctly greater increase in the number of pulsa­tions on awakening from sleep in women. Even the complex pheno­menon of hysteria is due to weakness of resistance of the vaso-motor system. And the special tendency of women to be affected by the disease of the eye called 'glaucoma' is, he says, accepted by all authorities to be due to the disturbances which emanate in generative organs.
He then points out that woman is more liable than man to convulsive manifestations. It is based on an abnormal readiness or in other words, an undue affectability. Frequent appearance of blushing in women is due to the greater affectability of their vaso-motor system. Convulsive tendency of women is testified by the facility with which they yield to tears and laughters. Tears are not produced by pain even when amounting to agony, but occur when 'sympathetic nervous system is most developed and most impressio­nable'.
Irritability, which Ellis calls 'irascibility,' is another form of affectability which 'has been quite legitimately attributed to women.' How far is this affectability in women, their greater emotionality, organic and, therefore, ineradicable, and how far is it the product of external circumstances and, therefore, capable of modification? Ellis says that affectability in wom:n may be decreased to some extent, but that 'there is, however, a limit to this sexual equali­zation of affectability, remains extremely probable.' And he further emphasises that 'the comparatively large extent of the sexual sphere in women and of the visceral regions generally, the physiological tendency to anaemia, the existence of inevitable periodicity of fun­ction in women, conspire to furnish a broader basis for the play of emotion which no change in environment or habit could remove.' And he quotes Hymen that 'all the most characteristic features of women's nature are correlated with emotionality, and half of women's psychic nature would remain unexplained if we struck out this factor.' Affectability in women, therefore, is an innate quality which, according to Havelock Ellis, may be reduced to finer and delicate shades but can scarcely be brought to the male standard.
It is not only Havelock Ellis who holds this opinion on the diffe­rences between men and women. There are other psychologists who think almost in the same terms. Thus Bloch1 says that 'psycholo­gically also man and woman are different beings;' and Forel* expresses a similar opinion. Kisch3 who has made an elaborate and deep study of woman's sexual life remarks: 'The intellectual changes undergone by the girl at puberty are no less extensive and charac­teristic than the physical. In brief, the girl is transformed into a young woman endowed with all the attributes, mental and bodily,
JJwan Bloch, The Sexual Life of Our Time, pp. 49-86. 2August Fotel, The Sexual Question, pp. 504-05. »Kisch, The Sexual Life of Women.


characteristic of femininity.' Dr. Winge,4 a Norwegian physician, quoted by Weith-Kundsen, says: 'The difference of sex is funda­mental. Both bodily and mentally the difference between the typical woman and the typical man is all-pervading—the difference is by no means confined to sexual organs.' And Weith-Kundsen himself remarks: 'Man and woman are not equal; they have never been equal and they never will be. On the contrary, the difference of sex is so deep-going that two men of different civilized races are much more nearly similar in their nature than are men and women be­longing to the same race.' Dr. Lambrose Gina writes in her book, The Soul of Woman, that not only n an and woman are different in height, in structure of the bones and in the muscular system, but they are also different in the quality and quantity of air and food that they absorb, that they are stfbject to different sicknesses, their desires are different and finally they differ in their mental and moral tendencies. She further remarks, 'Progress, evolution and life are possible only through differentiation.'
After quoting these authorities, "the author of Whither Woman! —V.M. Rege—writes on page 225 of his book: 'There is, there­fore, no escaping of the fact that there are certain inherent psycho­logical differences which sharply distinguish man and woman. Here there is no question of their relative superiority or inferiority. They only point to the fundamental differences of the sex in their function and mission. In their zeal to show equal educable capacity and intelligence, the English and American women are utterly misguided in demanding the same education for girls as for boys. It is now proved beyond doubt that woman has as much intelli­gence as man in pursuing the highest possible education. And this is exactly what has misguided the modern woman. She has misunder­stood her own nature, needs and functions. She has allowed herself to be exploited by male-like ideals. She has come to conceive in womanliness something inferior and lacking, so that she has held before her as model all that the male is doing. She has become ashamed of her womanliness and wishes it better if she had been born a male. These ideas have created a false standard before her, and consequently she has identified her personality with that of man. She has ignored that she has an independent personality, quite different and entirely equal to man and which, if she develop-
'Dr. Wingc quoted by Weith-Kundsen in Femininism, pecf, would develop into perfect womanliness.'
In the sphere of sexual morality, it has been observed by modern protagonists of sex equality that it is unjust to apply two different standards in respect of men and women; that if sexual laxity in men is not regarded as a very serious offence, there is no reason why it should be so regarded in women. This is true up to a certain limit and Islamic teachings have never made any discrimination in this respect between males and females. Thus adultery, according to Islam, in both men and women, is legally an equal offence punishable with equal penalties. But even in this sphere unalterable facts of Nature tilt the balance in favour of men. Discussing this question, Dr. Westermarck says in The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization:
But even if public opinion would, in the future, grant complete sexual freedom to the unmarried of either sex, the indulgence of it by girls would still be attendant with serious disadvantages already pointed out. There would undoubtedly be exploitation in women by men; girls who remained virgins would still be pre­ferred as wives, and the others would run the risk of being used for temporary purposes. Feminists advocating equal freedom for men and women seem to overlook the benefits that the men would derive from it; they would find it easier to gratify their desires in a more agreeable manner than through intercourse with prostitutes, and at the same time to acquire sexual expe­rience considered useful for their future marriage. When speaking of the 'injustice' of different moral demands on men and women, those advocates also fail to notice that this differences is ultimately due to a difference in the sexual instincts of the two sexes.
The ideas expressed above are more or less in line with the Islamic conception of sex equality. As we have shown in the begin­ning of this chapter, Islam upholds the essential human dignity and fundamental equality of the two sexes, but, along with the common rights and duties of men and women in which both are equal, it concedes some separate rights and prescribes some separate duties for men and women, in accordance with its view that each sex has its specific functions in society and is charged with an independent mission for the preservation and advancement of the human race.

Within this limits of their special mission and functions in society, both men and women will have different rights and responsibilities and neither sex should feel jealous of the other if this involves lesser fights for one sex against the other in a strictly limited sphere and on easily understandable terms capable of adjudication in law-courts. This is the meaning of the Quranic verse:
And do not covet that by which Allah has made some of you excel others; men should have the benefit of what they earn and women shall have the benefit of what they earn (v. 32).
According to Islam, there is a specific sex individuality in man and woman which they must preserve and cherish, because it is this individuality which gives them honour and dignity and enables them to fulfil in an effective manner their specific role in society. Where this specific sex individuality, instead of being regarded as a source of honour and dignity, is sought to be pulled and effaced, as if it involved an inferiority in men or women, it produces a dead and colourless equality which is, in effect, a denial of real equality, as it makes for less differentiation and, therefore, for less progress. There are clear instructions of the Holy Prophet on this point which stress the need for preserving sex individuality. Thus Abu Dawud records it on the authority of Abu Hurairah, a companion of the Prophet, that the Prophet uttered a curse on men who imitate women in their dress and manners and similarly on women who abhorred their feminity by trying to dress and act like men. Simil­arly, al another place, Abu Dawud has recorded that the Prophet severely condemned those women who tried to appear and behave in the form and likeness of men.
Consistent with the exercise of their specific individuality and of the special functions flowing therefrom and involving special rights and responsibilities, both sexes have equal rights and are looked upon by Islam as distinct legal personalities. A wife, even after having come in partnership with her husband, is a separate legal person in Islamic law capable of suing and being sued in her own individual capacity and entitled to sue her own husband for any infringement of her just rights. This is a position which was not accorded to the female sex in Europe and America until the nine­teenth century and this too after a great deal of agitation against the existing legal disabilities of women. Blackstone, who was the----------------------------------greatest exponent of the English Common Law and has profound influence on legal theory and practice both jn England and America, maintained that the legal position of a married woman was one of unity with husband. In The Legal Rights, Liabilities and Duties of Women, Professor Mansfield summarised the Blackstonian thesis as follows:
The first great principle of Scripture, the unity of husband and wife, is repeated by the law. They are, in law, one person. . . . Upon it, as observed by Blackstone, depend nearly all legal rights, duties and disabilities acquired by marriage.
Commenting on Blackstone's dictum, Mary B. Beard says in her book, Woman as Force in History:
When Blackstone spoke of the husband's rights over the real and personal property of his wife and of her disabilities in law, he was technically correct, within fixed limits. On its face, the state­ment meant that, in case of litigation, the husband asserts certain rights over the real and personal property of his wife, and if the wife contests them or the said rights are drawn in question at Common Law, the Common Law Courts will enforce the hus­band's Common Law rights, unless the husband and wife have made agreements to the contrary before and after the marriage, or a relative of the wife has safeguarded the wife's rights by the creation of a trust or otherwise, which agreements or trusts made in due form are valid in equity and will be enforced by courts of equity. In other words, in the absence of valid agreements and actions to the contrary, the husband may, if he so desires, or his creditors and other litigants may assert a husband's rights over the wife's property and within the limits set by the specific rules of Common Law, the Common Law Courts will enforce them in case of litigation.
This was the position of a married woman in Europe and Ame­rica until about 150 years ago. She could lose her rights on her own property, if the husband wished to deprive her of them because the law did not recognise her as separate legal personality. Islam, on the other hand, from its very inception, gave the married woman a separate legal status with full property rights. Little wonder that a wrong conception of sex equality and extremist stand in respect of female freedom resulted from the sense of utter frustra­tion generated by such great social and legal disabilities. But how could the Muslim women be justified in going to the same extreme length and preaching a conception of sex equality which lacks all scientific and natural basis as evidenced by latest researches on sex psychology, examples of some of which have been quoted above?
Women in Marriage
Tnere are three essential elements in every normal marriage,' says Dr. Westermarck in his book, The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization, 'the gratification of the sexual impulse, the relation between husband and wife apart from it and procreation of child­ren.' Let us see what is the angle of vision from which Islam looks at marriage and what is the central value in it which it stresses more than any other. Let it not also be forgotten that, unlike Chris­tianity, which looked upon marriage as if it were a necessary evil, Islam regards it as a most sacred institution and makes it incumbent on every Muslim man and woman, unless prevented by valid physical or economic incapacity, to lead a married life. The follow­ing traditions of the Holy Prophet stress the importance of marriage:
It is necessary for you to marry, because marriage is the most powerful shield against the allurements of sight and the protec­tion of your private parts; if one of you cannot afford it, let him fast because fasting weakens the sexual impulse.
The Prophet declared that marriage was one of his most sacred practices and added: 'Whoever dislikes my way of life is not of me' (Bukhari).
A tradition reported by Anas says, 'When a man has got married he has made his religion half perfect. Then let him fear Allah for the remaining half (Baihaqi).

The Qur'an also exhorts the followers of Islam to enter into marriage with chaste women:
Then marry such women as seem good to you (iv. 3).
And lawful for you are all women, besides those mentioned above, provided that you seek them with your property taking them in marriage, not committing fornication (iv. 24).
You are sprung one from the other; so marry them (slave-girls) with the permission of their masters and give them their dowries justly they being chaste, not fornicating, nor forming secret relations (iv. 25).
This day all the good things are allowed to you, and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you), when you have given them their dowries, taking them in marriage, not fornicating, nor taking them for paramours hi secret (v. 5).
The Qur'an has constantly used the word Muhsin for chaste men and Muhsinat for chaste women""both of which come from the Arabic root Hisn meaning 'fort'. The underlying idea is that mar­riage safeguards and protects chastity in the same manner as a fort protects the garrison within from a besieging army.
From the above quotations it appears that Islam recommends marriage because, first, it helps men and women to lead a life of chastity, that is, it secures them against promiscuous sexual indulgence; secondly, because it prevents the formation of secret sex relations. These two values are the cornerstone on which the institution of marriage rests and Islam's conception of woman's rights in marriage flows logically from them.
Let us see what the social importance of chastity and open sex relation is as opposed to secret love. In modern times, the ideal of chastity has lost hold on man and it has been claimed by some, even among men of science and learning, that chastity is by no means a very important social value and that happiness in marriage as well as the proper upbringing of children need not suffer from sexual promiscuity on the part of either partner. Some would go to the length of abolishing the family system in order to secure the release of men and women from the bonds of conjugal fidelity. It----------------------is presumed by these people that alternative methods of bringing up children can be organised more efficiently. It is difficult to bring out the importance of chastity as a social value, unless we discuss all such proposals and ideas.
Let us first deal with the importance of conjugal fidelity and its healthy effects on the happiness of the family and the health of society. Islam has made no distinction in this respect between man and woman; both are equally punishable under the law of Islam if they are guilty of sexual laxity. But, in practice, public opinion has always, even in Western countries, taken more alarm at unchastity in women than in men, the reason being that the disturbing social and family effects of a woman's misconduct are deeper and more widespread. Discussing this inequality of treatment as regards men and women, Dr. Westermarck says in The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization:
But there are also more special reasons for that inequality bet­ween the sexes. It was a doctrine of the Roman jurists that adul­tery is a crime in the wife, and in the wife only, on account of the danger of introducing strange children to the husband.... It has been argued that the danger of confusion of pregnancy has disappeared with the development of methods for preventing conception, but it is anything but certain that the lovers trouble themselves about contraceptives. Von Krafft-Ebing writes [in his book The Modern Family]: 'The unfaithfulness of a wife, in com­parison with that of a husband, is morally much more weighty, and should be more severely punished legally. The unfaithful wife dishonours not only herself, but also her husband and her family. . . .' 'The man,' says Kisch In [Die Sexuelle Untreue der Frau], 'can make a lapse in this marriage without the consequ­ences of it being necessarily of vital importance; he can at any moment do remorseful penance without the mischief he has caused being irreparable. The infidelity of the wife poisons the soul for ever, shakes the foundations of the harmony beween mother and children, makes the legitimacy of the latter uncertain, and leads to an irreparable rupture of the domestic life.' Hedwig Wega observes that while the adultery of the husband is in many cases a purely sexual act, which need not spoil marriage, that of the wife is in no case merely bodily attachment. Stendhal remarks [in his book On Love] that where love is absent, the fidelity of a
WOMEN IN MARRIAGE 35
married woman is something contrary to nature, but that, 'with love there, one has no taste for any mate but that of the beloved fount.' He also writes: The difference between infidelity in the two sexes is so real, that a woman of passion may pardon it, while for a man that is impossible!'
These are some of the consequences of female unchastity, but no less grave are the consequences which follow from the sexual irregularities of men. We shall again quote Dr. Westermarck who says:
However useful sexual intercourse may be to the unmarried, it has also its disadvantages. It may give venereal diseases to him who practises it; and it may be fraught with serious consequences for the female partner.. . . The illegitimacy of birth affects the offspring even more than the mother. The death rate for illegiti­mate infants is very much higher than for legitimate ones. ... Another result of them is the comparatively large number of cri­minals among the children of unmarried parents, who grow up in so unfavourable circumstances. The way in which they have been treated in the Western world is a disgrace to its civiliza­tion. .. It certainly seems both absurd and unjust that the legal rights of any citizens should be influenced by the judgments which society passes upon their mothers; but however much legislation may improve the condition of illegitimate children, it cannot make them equal to those under which most other children develop. Family allowances may be granted to thier mothers where the father is unknown or indigent, founding institutions may provide them with an education that is the best possible in the circumstances, but nothing can compensate them for the lack of an adequate home.
It may of course be argued that all such evils can be avoided through the use of contraceptives. Dr. Ellis maintains that the much smaller rate of illegitimate children in England, compared with the rate of such children in Germany, is due to the wider adoption of methods for preventing conception, but when we hear that their number is rapidly increasing in Germany, in spite of the fact that contraceptives are used on a large scale in all classes, we can by no means feel reassured that extra-matrimonial procreation will some day become an anachronism. Strictly--------------speaking, however, the censure to which the unmarried mother is subject refers to something else than the birth of the child; this event is an impressive and conclusive testimony of an act which itself is considered degrading.
The above quotations should suffice to establish the fact that immodesty and unchastity have a serious disturbing effect on married happiness, family ties and the proper development of chil­dren. Apart from these effects, conjugal infidelity breeds jealousy, one of the most destructive human passions, both individually and socially. There are people who try to minimise the effects of jealo­usy, and regarding it as a relic of primitive barbarity foresee its disappearance with the spread of education and enlightenment. Dr Westermarck himself is one of those who believe that with proper education this primitive feeling would disappear, but even he has been forced to admit that there is one kind of sexual and conjugal jealousy which is not traceable to primitive barbarity.
This kind of jealousy, he says, arises from the uniqueness of the relationship between two persons and the endeavour to stamp this uniqueness on the whole relationship, sexual and moral. If this is true, civilisation and culture may be expected to increase this kind of jealousy rather than refuse its proportion. Let us see what Dr. Westermarck himself has to say on this subject. He writes:
The jealousy of a man, particularly a civilized man, differs from that of a male animal, apart from any feeling of injured rights— ownership or any other right. It is coloured by the nature of his love. It is accompanied with humiliation, because the loss of possession to which jealousy refers, or the failure to obtain it, is of such a nature as carries with it a lowering of a man's self-valuation. There may also be envy of what the other has obtained by depriving him of it. There may be fear of another man's offspring being born into the family. But there is one characteristic common to sexual jealousy in all its forms, namely, that it is an angry feeling aroused by loss, or fear of the loss, of the exclusive possession of an individual who is the object of one's sexual desire. It is impossible to suppose that the feeling of anger will ever disappear, however ugly and useless it may be. How violent ... it sometimes is among ourselves is illustrated by the fact that in analysing 188 murders committed by some persons in England, a prison commissioner recently found that the highest number, 46, were due to jealousy.
But even when the infidelity of a husband or wife does not give rise to the angry feeling of jealousy it causes deep sorrow: and I think it can be demanded of a spouse to consider whether he or she has a right to inflict such suffering upon the other party. Helene Stocker observes that the refined feeling of love implies instinctively an obligation to avoid, as far as possible, making the beloved person feel pain. It is true, as Bertrand Russell said, that love is a generous emotion. But it is not generous to the person who has to suffer for his generosity towards another.
Communist-minded persons in our country who really desire to maintain their capitalistic way of living under the garb of Commu­nism have spread the false idea that Soviet Communism does not attach any importance to the ideal of feminine chastity, because all such ideas and values are really the product of outmoded religious teaching. But a writer of the eminence of Havelock Ellis writes: 'There has been an erroneous idea abroad in the world that the Bolsheviks believe in sexual intemperance and promiscuity in sex relations, an idea no doubt based on the chaos which inevitably resulted at first when the new regime was so suddenly inaugurated. That disorder much distressed Lenin himself, who was entirely opposed to promiscuity >nd all mere physical indulgence, and held that the highest human elements entered the love relationship. It is Lenin's doctrine which now permeates Soviet society.'1
The same writer tells us that unchaste women command little respect in Soviet society. 'It would almost seem that the polyandric woman whom, in the opinion of some Western persons, Soviet conditions favour, is there unduly depreciated.... Blonsky points out that the depreciation of polyandric women is shared by men, even the men who form temporary relationships with them, for men are inclined to look on such women as a convenient means of satisfying sexual needs, simply as substitutes for prostitution, and feel for them no high regard. That, Blonsky considers, is an influ­ence making for the degradation of polyandric woman whose life courses are not usually happy. It is unnecessary to add that the monoyandric woman, who is peculiarly adapted for motherhood*(On Life and Sex, p. 187) and family life, will not be easily deprived of that career.'2
It is sometimes argued by those who wish to lead a life of un­limited sexual indulgence that there is no reason why a man's sexual desires should be tied down to one woman, why he should be put under an unnecessary obligation to bring up a family with all its cares and responsibilities. To such persons Havelock Ellis replies: 'It used sometimes to be asked: What has posterity done for me that I should do anything for posterity? The question was wrongly put. "Posterity" is only another name for mankind, and when we pose the question rightly, there can be no dispute about the answer. If we put aside the part that belongs to Nature or God we owe everything to Mankind. All that we are, all that we possess in civilization, we owe to the everlasting aspiration and struggle of Mankind before us, and to the slow accumulation of knowledge and art on the topmost level on which we now stand. Our immense debt to Mankind in the past can only be repaid to Mankind in future. It is our privilege, if we do not regard it as our duty, to pass on in ever finer shapes the great traditions which have been handed to us.'3
Such passages enable us to understand why Islam insists on mar­riage both for men and women. Without married life involving the care and education of children, human personality can never find its full development and the great traditions of religion, cul­ture and civilisation cannot be passed on to the future generation. It should also be remembered that children contribute as much to our education and personal self-development as we contribute to their proper growth and upbringing, so that it can be safely asserted that a childless man is necessarily a half-developed man. Then there is an additional consideration. If human individuality is a value of some importance, then it is not only necessary for every person to develop his individuality to the fullest extent possi­ble but also to transmit it for the future use of mankind by bring­ing into the world fresh individuals who will retain at least a part of his individual characteristics.
It is possible, however, to admit the necessity of procreation and the importance of chastity as a cementing and healing bond in family life and yet maintain that by abolishing the family and
"Ibid., p. 171. 3lbid., p. 185.
women in marriage

evolving alternative institutions for the training and upbringing of children, we may allow a large amount of sexual latitude to men and women without any serious social disturbance. Such methods were tried in Soviet Russia for some time and, though the Soviet Republic has widely abandoned them, their echoes are still heard even in our backward country. It is true that if once we can get rid of the family and evolve other means for the preservation of human race and the education of children, modesty, chastity and all other such values lose their necessity. But what is the possi­bility of success in this attempt? Is it possible to abolish the family or is it rooted in our social nature? Let us deal with the question, as it has a very important bearing on the rights of women versus men.
There are three biological tendencies common to man and ani­mals which form the foundation of fa nily life and which cannot be overthrown now or in any conceivable future. They are the im­pulse of sexual attraction which leads to mating, the tendency to a close and enduring comradeship with the opposite sex and the instinctive impulse of mates to care for their offspring. Even an authority like Havelock Ellis admits that 'it is vain for even the most conservative of human beings to lament the failure of marri­age, it is futile for even the most light-hearted of radicals to hope to get beyond it. The family is at the root of our bisexual consti­tution, and needs no formal institution.'4 Again the same writer says, 'It has too often been forgotten that the family possesses this manysided flexibility and has in different ages and lands shown endless variation of shape in adjustment to varying social conditions. Those who overlooked this essential fact have frequ­ently cried out in rebellion against the whole conception of the family. Because they themselves have chanced to come out of an unhappy family life—though the excellent qualities they have, not­withstanding often displaced so far show that even an unhappy family life may have happy results —they impetuously demand the complete abolition of the family.'5 Havelock Ellis also replies to those who believe that the economic independence of woman achieved by her in modern society, h;r increasing participation in civil and industrial life and the growing use of contraceptives will
('Ibid, 'Renovation of Family* 'Ibid_)

in the end lead to the disintegration of the family. He does not believe in any such consummation and says in his essay on the 'Renovation of Family' that these factors, instead of abolishing family, may even strengthen and purify it, if they are well handled. Institutions like the maternity home, the nursery school and the kindergarten which are increasingly taking over the functions of the home have encouraged a large number of people to believe that as this process goes on to its perfection, the family will soon be­come unnecessary as a social institution. Those who harbour such notions should not turn a blind eye to evils which are likely to arise from the disappearance of personal and intimately affectionate relation between the parents and children. Mechanical instruments involving depersonalisation of human relations are a source of danger to the growth of human personality. This aspect of the. matter is well brought out by Margaret Mead in her book Male and Female. Writing about American mothers, she says: 'Birth in America is ideally, more and more frequently and actually in a hospital. This means that but for a few exceptional cases, the father is absent and the mother has been given over to_ the care of pro­fessionals, doctors and nurses. For months before the birth she has been preparing to leave her home and her husband, rot for the home of her parents or her brothers, as in many primitive societies, but for a strange, segregated spot, where she and many other women unknown to her will lie together, giving birth among stran­gers. When the baby is born, it is against the force of gravity, on a delivery table designed not to let the child's own weight assist the birth but rather to facilitate the ministrations of the obstetri­cian. Its first cry is often induced by a vigorous slap. The mother, deep under an anaesthetic dose, does not hear this cry, although recent research has suggested that the cry has a function in making her uterus contract. The infant is taken away to a row of cribs; its lips, ready for sucking, are left to press helplessly against each other; crying brings no circease. The primary bodily capabilities with which the child enters the world are initially unrewarded. It can suck, but no breast is given it; it can cry for help, but no one holds close and feeds it. Its body is wrapped completely in soft cloth, the first lesson in expecting cloth to intervene between one body and the next. The second lesson will come when it is taken to its mother, at the proper hour for its birth weight, neatly laid out on a moving table, and placed against h:r fully clothed body, with
the carefully sterilised breast exposed just a few inches, and persu­aded to suck. This persuasion is often a grim business, the nurse knows how to take the baby, who very often is so exhausted with hunger that it no longer wants to eat, and, holding it by the scruff of the neck, puts it on the mother's breast. Whether it eats or not, it is supposed to be taken away again after the appointed number of minutes. The mother is left sometimes worried and enraged be­cause the baby would not eat, having very doubtfully enjoyed in routinised cloth-developed experience. During the nine or ten days that follow, the mother handles her baby clothed, and only at regular hours. The father does not handle it at all. Breast-feeding is frequently abandoned altogether, and by the time the child goes home, the mother, if not the baby, has learned that contacts between mother and child have a certain form. The failure of milk, the failure of the baby to nurse, the obstetrical and pediatric pressure towards at least supplementary feeding are all natural enough in a setting where the hew child is treated as if its health and well-being depended on the machine-like precision with which it is fed and o.i what it is fed. The mother learns impatience with her milk, which is too rich or too weak, too much or too little, pouring through nipples that are inverted or sore or otherwise un­obliging. She can turn with some relief to the bottle and the formula, the reliable rubber nipple with a hole that can be enlarg­ed with a pin, the graduated bottle -into which just the right formula at just the right temperature can be measured. No recalcitrant individual unregulated body here, to endanger her baby's gain in weight, the chief criterio;i of its healthful existence. At once or in a few weeks, most American mothers reject their own bodies as a source of food for their children, and, in accepting the mechanical perfection of a bottle, reaffirm to themselves, and in the way they handle their babies, that the baby too will be much better the more it learns to use the beautifully mechanical bottle—accurately on time, in the right amounts, the more it accepts an external rhythm, and abandons its peculiar rhythms that it brought into the world.
'For primary learning experience that is the physical prototype of sex relationship, a complementary relation between the body of the mother and the body of the child is substituted a relation bet­ween the child and an object, an object that imitates the breast but which is not handled as either part of the mother or part of the body. If the mother holds the baby as she gives it the bottle in-------------------most instances it becomes an implement, an extension of her hand so that it holds food, rather than an extension of her breast. At what age the child distinguishes the exact difference between a glass bottle and a rubber nipple, loose in space, and a human breast, we do not know, but the mother experiences the difference from the state, and her experience is available to the ch'ild, in her voice, in her hands, in the very tempo of her being. She is not giving the child herself; she is faithfully, efficiently providing the child with a bottle, external to both of them substituting for a direct relationship mediated by an object.'8
This ironic description of an ideal delivery in an ideal hospital shows how the substitution of mechanical inventions for direct human contacts retards the growth and mars the personality bf the child. Evidence is not lacking to prove that institutional care of f children is a poor substitute for home life. A White House Con­ference on Child Health and Protection held in America in 1930 declared that 'institutional care for the most part has produced uninspired individuals poorly adjusted to the outside world.' Dr. Nimkoff writes: 'We can show that normal family life is indispens­able to the proper 'development of the child's personality.'7 Floyd Dell writes: 'Institutional life at its best has been notoriously drab and barren in comparison with ordinary family life. Institutional life has been found to fail in developing individual powers and in furnishing incentives for growing up. It has characteristically turned out spiritless creatures who do not know how to get along in the outside world. The best modern institutions for children now model themselves upon the parental home and try to give what it should give. Even at their best, however, these institutions, when they replace the private home entirely, are regarded as makeshifts, as poor substitutes for a real home with real parents. And real home and real parents are known to be so important to the child's development that it is more and more the practice that only as a last resort are homes broken up and children taken from parents.'8 After giving an account of the methods tried by Soviet Russia for providing alternate education to children and the results ex­perienced, Dr. Westermarck says in his book The Failure of Marri-
*Quoted by Westermarck in The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization. 'Quoted in ibid.
•IM.
Age in Western Civilization:
Many facts thus support the general belief that there is no adequate substitute for the beneficial influence which parents as a rule exercise upon their children, that the love of the parents towards the child is one of the most essential features, if the child's moral and emotional development is to proceed harmoni­ously.
In these circumstances I can find no reason to suppose that it could be in the interests of the state in the future to break up the family. The Bolsheviks' suspicious attitude towards it is due to the view that private property has always served as a cementing bond in the family; and to demolish private property is the object of the most feverish efforts of the new society. It is consi­dered to be of great importance that the mentality of the Russian youth should be largely moulded by agencies outside the home, away from the family circle; in the kindergartens and schools it is always made to feel that the supreme aim of life is the promo­tion of the purposes of the new society. Yet, though the rulers of Russia regard the family as a menace to their ultimate designs, they find it at the present stage of readjustment indispensable to the maintenance of social stability. But they have obviously underrated its vitality. The persistence of the family does not depend upon the preservation of private property. Its safest guarantee is the love of man and woman for each other and for their children, and the Bolsheviks are even said to assure them­selves that this bond will gain in firmness when property has passed from private to social control.
In conclusion, Dr. Westermarck says:
So far as I can see, then, there is every reason to believe that the unity of sexual and spiritual elements in sexual love, leading to a more or less durable community of life in a common home, and the desire for and love of offspring are factors which will remain lasting obstacles to the extinction of marriage and the collapse of the family, because they are too deeply rooted in human nature to fade away, and can find adequate satisfaction only in some form of marriage and the family founded upon it.------------------ We thus find that the family, as the basic unit of social organi­sation, is likely to outlast the forces tending to destroy it. A stable family life is necessary not only in the interests of society, not only for the happiness and moral development of the husband and the wife, but also for the proper growth and development of future generations. Conditions and forces which tend to shake the stability of the family should be countered and removed in the interests of the society and the individual. If these basic facts are admitted, chastity becomes a value of the highest social importance to be safeguarded at all costs. And from this conception and pattern of family life, the mutual rights and obligations of men and women can be deter­mined with more scientific precision and greater justice than from an abstract conception of equality which does not keep in view the practical requirements of family organisation. Islam has built its system of rights and obligations for men and women not on a vague and abstract conception of sex equality but on a doctrine of basic sex equality qualified by actual biological sex differences and the practical needs of a stable family organisation. With this back­ground in view, we proceed to discuss the rights and obligations of the female sex as defined by Islam.
In order to ensure a happy home and a really stable family life, Islam has assigned to marriage the status of a contract dissoluble if either party develops grievances against the other leading to a final and irrevocable break in their mutual relations. It is not, as in Christianity, a sacrament indissoluble except by a difficult process and under very extraordinary circumstances. This may appear, at first sight, to be a factor operating against family stability, but in fact it is designed to safeguard it. There is really no virtue in keeping two persons tied together to save appearances, when their relations have deteriorated beyond all hope of reconciliation. An unhappy marriage resulting in interminable quarrels fails to realise the primary object of the union which brought the partners to­gether, besides increasing the probability of illegal sexual relations outside marriage. It also tells upon the health and education of children. It is, therefore, better both socially and morally that the husband and the wife should be allowed to part with each other if the breaking point has been reached in their mutual relations. Therefore, marriage in Islam is not indissoluble but a kind of contract in which specific rights and obligations may be undertaken besides those already implied in marriage. These rights are justifiable in a court of law. It is open both to the husband and the wife to enter into agreement prior to marriage on matters which they consider important for the regulation of their future relations. Such agreements shall be parts of the marriage contract and ad-judicable in law-courts, provided they are not repugnant to the basic rights and obligations of husband and wife as stated by Islam. Thus 'Umar, the Second Caliph, says: 'When a person marries a woman and the woman stipulates that she would not be taken out of the town or city of her residence, it is necessary for the husband -to abide by the stipulation' (Tirmidhi, p. 385). Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi'i also hold the same opinion. But 'Ali, the Fourth Caliph, says: 'The conditions laid down by God take precedence over the conditions set by man,' which means that, in his opinion, such a cc ,'ition is repugnant to the basic terms of marriage. Sufyan Thauri and other scholars of Kufah also hold the same opinion. Whatever the differences among the scholars on this point, they relate to the point whether this particular stipulation is or is not repugnant to the basic terms of marriage contract as defined by Islam. There is no disagreement on the point whether a woman can insist on inserting terms of her own in the marriage contract. All are unanimous that she holds this right. Thus the author of Nail al-Autar (Pt. VII, p. 6t) says: 'The wife can lay down conditions prior to marriage relating to her way of living, her food, house and dress, according to the social status of the husband and that her just rights shall not be whittled. Similarly, the husband can lay down these conditions: that the wife shall not go out from home without his permission, that she shall not refuse sexual intercourse with him and shall not use his property and possessions except by
his permission.' Tl
Just as a man can stipulate that his wife shall not go out except by his permission, it is open to the woman to insist that she shall not be prevented from going out of her home on suitable occasions or for her economic or social needs, so long as this action does not disturb the work of her husband or the proper upbringing of the children. All these matters come within the scope of the-rnarriage agreement, but since some of them are not easily justifiable, much depends on the actual relations of the husband and the wife after marriage and their mutual understanding. All these things show that the wife does not lose, under Islam, her separate legal personality, °ut retains full possession of it. She can sue her husband in a law---------------court if (he implied or express terms of the marriage contract are violated by the husband. This is in direct contrast to the position of woman under Christianity. Professor Mansfield, writing in his book The Legal Rights, Liabilities and Duties of Women, states: The first great principle of Scripture, the unity of husband and wife, is repeated by the law. They are, in law, one person. Upon it, as observed by Blackstone, depend nearly all the legal rights, duties and disabilities acquired by marrige.' The English Common Law, as interpreted by Blackstone, whose commentaries governed actual legal decisions both in England and America for a very long period, assigned the same position to a wife in relation to her husband. It was only with the greatest difficulty and by resorting to parliament­ary legislation or equity courts that the wife was able to secure a few rights over against her husband. From a strictly legal viewpoint, the position of women among the Muslims has been really enviable when compared to that of their counterparts in the Western coun­tries.
In order to safeguard the economic position of women after the marriage, Islam has made it legally obligatory on the husband to pay her a reasonable amount as dower. The amount to be fixed as dower depends on the agreement beween the two parties, but, in any case, the object is to strengthen the financial position of the wife, so that she is not prevented, for lack of money, from defend­ing her rights. The Qur'an says:
And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they them­selves be pleased to give up to. you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result (iv. 4).
And if you wish to have (one) wife in the place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold (as dowry) take not anything from her; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong? (iv. 20).
No marriage can be regarded as legally valid, according to Islam, for which dowry has not been stipulated. If the amount of dowry is not fixed, the wife is entitled to proper dowry (mehr-i-mithl), even if the marriage was contracted on the express condition that she should not claim any dowry. In determining what is 'proper' dowry, regard is to be had to the amount of dower settled upon other female members of her father's family such as her father sisters. The following tradition of the Prophet stresses the import­ance attached to dowry in Islam:
Ibn 'Umar reported that the Prophet of Allah forbade shighar and shighar is a man's giving his daughter in marriage on condi­tion that another would give his daughter in marriage to him and that there should be no dowry between them.
Another tradition collected by Abu Dawud and Nasa'i says:
'Alqamah b. Mas'ud reported that he was asked about a man who married a woman but did not fix any dowry for her, nor had he any intercourse with her till he died. Ibn Mas'ud told her: Fix the equivalent dowries of his women, neither less nor more. And there is the period of waiting for her and there is her share of inheritance for her (from her husband's property), then Ma'qal b. Sinan got up and said: 'The Messenger of Allah decreed in case of Barwa'ah bint Washiq (a woman belonging to us) just as you have decreed.'
Regarding the amount of dowry to be fixed, Islam has given a wide latitude to men and women. It can be as low as possible or as high as the parties may desire. Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi report from 'Amir ibn Rabi'ah that a woman belonging to the tribe of Banu Fazarah married a man for a pair of shoes. The Prophet asked her whether she was really happy over that much dowry. She replied in the affirmative, whereupon the Prophet made no objection.
According to Abu al-Ja'far, it was the opinion of 'Umar, the Second Caliph, that the dowry should not be fixed at a very high *ate,Jbr if this had been a point of honour and pleasing in the sight of God, the Prophet too would have acted accordingly, but he did not fix more than a hundred and twenty-five dirhams of dowry for his wives and daughters (Tirmidhi, p. 132). 'Umar's opinion was, however, challenged by a woman who said: 'Umar, you have no right to impose such restrictions, because the Holy Qur'an says that men should not take back anything from their wives if they intend to divorce them, even if they have given them a heap of gold. This shows that God allows even a very high rate of dowry. 'Umar replied to her saying that she was right and that he had made a mistake himself (Nail-al-Autar by Shaukani, p. 85).--------------------- essence. According to a tradition of Tirmidhi reported by Ibn 'Abbas, the Prophet declared: 'Those women are adulteresses who marry themselves without the presence of witnesses.' 'Umar was once told that a certain marriage had been performed with one witness only. He said that such a marriage amounted to clandes­tine relationship which was illegal. If he had knowledge of it before­hand, he would have dealt stern punishment to either party.
Guardianship is regarded by some as necessary for the marriage of a woman. There are some traditions in which the presence of a guardian has been made an essential condition precedent to the marriage of a girl. Thus Bukhari gives a tradition stating: 'There is no marriage without a guardian.' This is probably meant only for minor girls. Imam Abu Hanifah, the greatest and the most popular jurist f of Islam, holds that a marriage, whether of a widow or a grown-up virgin, is permissible even without a guardian. Imam Shafi'i and Imam Malik, however, hold that guardianship is neces­sary for the marriage of a woman. As marriage depends essentially upon the choice of a woman, the presence of a guardian, even if one is required by law, can be regarded, necessary only in the sense that he undertakes to watch theTnterests of the minor or the grown-up girl who is to be married and to see that she is not disadvan-taged by reason of sex in the settlement of the terms on which marriage is contracted. This interpretation is supported by a tradi­tion contained in Kitab al-Nikah of the collection made by Tirmidhi. The tradition states: 'Ayeshah said, the Prophet of God declared: 'Marriage of a woman is invalid without there being a guardian.' He repeated this three times and said that if the husband of such a woman had sexual intercourse with her, she should receive her dower and if, after the performance of the marriage, the two quarrel, then the ruler of the Muslims is the guardian of the wo­man who has no other guardian. The reference here to the reco­very of dower and the possibility of a quarrel as well as recognition of the right of the State to take up the functions of a guardian all point to the fact that the Prophet had in mind the necessity of safe­guarding the interests of women by making the presence of a guar­dian essential. In a society which, until the advent of Islam, had been ridden by sex inequality and where women had been treated as mere chattel, it was always possible, despite the teachings of Islam, that a single woman without a guardian or a patron should find herself at a disadvantage in the settlement of marriage term.

So the Prophet deemed it essential that, if there be no guardian for a woman, the State should become her guardian with a view to ensuring equality and justice at the time of marriage contract and thereafter. No other interpretation is possible in view of the fact that the final say in all matters has been accorded to women them­selves and not to their guardians, a fact which is attested by the authentic traditions of the Prophet himself.
That the woman who contracts a marriage, and not her father or guardian, has the final choice in the matter, is proved by the following traditions which extend to women the right to repudiate a marriage forced on them through pressure, direct or indirect:
Ibn 'Abbas reported that a virgin grown-up girl came to the Prophet of Allah and narrated that her father had given her in marriage to a person whom she disliked. The Prophet gave her option (Abu-Dawud).
Again:
Khansa' b. Khidham reported that her father gave her in marriage, after she became a widow. She disliked it and came to the Prophet. He annulled the marriage (Bukhari).
A very significant report which throws a flood of light on the complete liberty of choice and repudiation extended to women by Islam in the matter of their marriage is found in the traditions col­lected by Nasa'i. The reporter is no less a person than. 'Ayeshah, the wife of the Prophet. She says, 'A girl came and stated that her father had given her in marriage to his nephew and she disliked him. I told her to wait till the Prophet arrived. When the Prophet came, I told him the full story of the girl. He at once sent for the father of the girl and inquired of him whether the facts stated were true, after which he told the girl that she was at liberty to choose or repudiate her husband. The girl replied saying that she chose to retain her marriage, and that she wanted only to know whether women had any rights in the matter.' Another tradition from the collection made by Ibn Majah states: 'Ibn 'Umar says: 'Uthman b. Maz'un left behind a young daughter. My uncle, Qudamah, married her to me, and did not even consult her. When the girl came to know of this, she disliked this marriage and wished to marry Mughirah b. Shu'bah. So she was married to Mughirah.'
All these traditions furnish conclusive proof that a girl is as free in Islam as a boy to choose or repudiate her partner and that the Prophet's insistence on there being a guardian before a woman can be married was intended tc safeguard her position and rights in a society which was not yet completely free from the dominance of the male sex and in which a lonely woman -ran a chance of being outwitted by clever men and left without the necessary protection.
The legal equality of men and women in Islam is a fact which has never been in dispute among the Muslims. There is no legal right belonging to man for which a corresponding female right can­not be cited. But the ideal of sex equality or any other kind of equality cannot be wholly given eifect to by the law. Specially is this true of the relations between husband and wife which in their very nature refuse to be covered and guided wholly by legal injunctions and principles. Real equality between the sexes depends much more on social opinion and national traditions than on legal commands. Even in Western countries where the claim for complete equality between the two sexes has been pressed, to extremes, formidable difficulties have been experienced by legislators to translate the ideal into the actual. Mary Beard, after giving a detailed account of the attempts made in America to give equal property rights to men and women, mentions a long list of legislative failures to give effect to the principle of equality. The following extract from her book, Woman as Force in History, will give the reader an idea of the intricate and evasive nature of the ideal of sex equality. Writing about the legislative changes made in America with respect to wo­men's property rights, she says:
A Married Women's Property Act was, therefore, simple in principle. But in application the terms of such an Act were diffi­cult to draw. Despite the theory of independence and equality which was supposed to furnish guidance in drafting the Act, law-reformers and law-makers actually confronted a paradox: The wife is to be treated as if she is a single woman in respect of her property, but in marital relations she has obligations not assumed by single women and is no more of a single person than her hus­band is; for both are entangled in a network of duties not imposed on single persons. Is the wife free to use her property as she pleased while the husband is in straits to support her and their children? In what, if any, circumstances is the wife to be under obligation to support the family in part or whole? Is the owner of the home, whether husband or wife, to be allowed to sell it at will, without the consent of the other party to the nfarriage contract, and turn the family out of it? These and a hundred other questions taxed the adroitness of law-makers and were answered by men and women in many different ways. No mere declaration of equality could dispose of them in a few words. At no time or place did it prove possible to write one Married Wo­men's Property Bill which could settle all these questions.
The same writer goes on to say:
In their efforts to clear away anchronisms and to bring the law abreast the advance in civilization, legislators did not, indeed could not, treat a man and a woman who had chosen to marry and bring children into the world as if they were perfectly free and entitled to be wholly whimsical with their respective proper­ties and earnings, without regard for obligations due to each other. Nor could legislators overlook the rights of their children, their creditors and their more or less distant relatives. All law­makers recognized the fact that husband and wife had to surren­der some freedom by virtue of their very marriage contract. How much and what kinds of freedom? ... On the point of how to realize the ideal of equality, men differed and women differed and provisions of law running into hundreds of pages reflected their doubts, uncertainties and aspirations.
Furthermore, after statutes were enacted, the application of the principles in them to human controversies which arose in law and equity, led to a positive risk of variations. The more general the principles, the more difficult it was for men and women as liti­gants and for courts as tribunals of adjudication to agree on the meaning of principles as governing concrete cases. Especially is this true of novel cases not specifically contemplated or provided for in the written laws. And novel cases were and are perennial and striking features of life and law.
How far Married Women's Property Acts and kindred legisla­tion fell short of covering in concrete anticipation the numerous problems that arose under them is indicated by the following types of questions raised and adjudicated in various jurisdictions of the United States after the process of abolishing common-law doctrines had been started. In order that the readers may decide for themselves, if they can, how these questions should have been answered under the theory of separate property rights and equality, the answers given to these questions by the judges in affirmative opinions, negative opinions, and diversities of opini­ons, are left to the readers' imagination.
Does the Married Women's Property Act relieve a husband of obligation to support his wife, even if he has become bankrupt and she is earning money?
If the wife leaves the husband without good reasons and returns home voluntarily at a later date, is the husband to pay the bills which she had incurred for her support during her absence?
Can the wife lawfully waive the husband's liability to support her with a view to helping him pay. his debts to creditors?
If the husband employs his wife at wages otherwise payable to someone else, may she be deprived of the money or the property in which it is invested on the ground that it is actually her hus­band's?
May the wife take her separate property, enter business, and, without his consent, compete with her husband's who is legally liable for her support?
Where under a new statute the husband is forbidden to use even gentle force to restrain his wife, may he lawfully restrain her from committing a crime?
If. the husband carries on a gambling business in his wife's house, may she be liable for his crimes committed therein?
There are a thousand other questions likely to arise in the marri­ed state to show the limitations of law in governing husband-and-wife relations. Even if perfection in legislative acts were possible and the marital relations of men and women could be placed on a footing of full equality, that would not automatically ensure actual equality in day-to-day relations. Human relations in general and marital relations in particular are governed and regulated far more by customs, traditions and the spiritual and moral outlook of human beings than by legal enactments and commands of the sovereign. Law alone is an insufficient guide and measures in gauging the extent to which a civilisation gives effect to the ideal of sex equali­ty. To understand in full the attitude of a community towards the relations between the two sexes, we must look to its general moral teachings, as distinguished from legal provisions. Let'tis judge Islam from this angle and see how far it adds to the social dignity of women and ensures their equality in its social precepts, moral principles and spiritual directions.
In stating the general principles according to which marital rela­tions should be regulated, the Qur'an had laid particular emphasis on love and compassion as an essential ingredient of married life:
And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from among yourselves that you may find quiet of mind in them and He put between you love and compassion (xxx. 21).
With a view to dispelling the false idea that men are inherently superior to women, the Qur'an emphasises that differences of race, tribe, sex and nationality do not disturb the fundamental equality of mankind:
O you men! surely We have created you male and female and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty) (xlix. 13).
The same breadth of outlook is reflected in those verses of the Holy Qur'an which deal with the more concrete problems arising out of marital life. In regard to the treatment of wives whom their husbands wish to divorce, the Qur'an says:
O believers! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against their will and do not straiten them in order to take from them a part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency; and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it (iv. 19).
But when you divorce women, and the time for sending them away is come, either retain them with generosity, or put them away with generosity, but retain not them by constraint so as to be unjust towards them. He who doth so, doth in fact injure himself (ii. 231).Generosity in the relations between husband and wife has been emphasised again and again:
But if you divorce them before consummation and have already settled a dowry on them, ye shall give them half of what ye have settled, unless they relinquish or he should relinquish in whose hands is the marriage tie; and it is nearer to piety that you should relinquish; and do not forget to be generous between yourselves: surely Allah sees what you do (ii. 237).
After a woman has been divorced, no motive remains for the husband to treat her kindly, but the Qur'an insists on kindly and generous treatment so long as there subsists the weakest tie among the partners:
Lodge them where you lodge according to your means, and do not injure them in order that you may straiten them; and if they are pregnant, spend on them until they lay down their burden; then if they suckle for you, give them their recompense; and consult among yourselves and act generously, and if you disagree, another woman shall suckle for him.
Let him who has abundance spend out of his abundance, and whoever has his means of subsistence straitened to him, let him spend out of that which Allah has given him. Allah does not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent to which He has grant­ed it (Ixv. 6-7).
The same generosity towards women is enjoined by the Prophet in his traditions. A report from Abu Hurairah says: 'No believer should be angry towards his wife. If some of her qualities are dis­pleasing, there will be many other qualities worth appreciation' (Nail al-Autar, p. 125). 'Ayeshah, the wife of the Prophet, reports: The Prophet of God said: 'The best of you is he who is good to his wife' (Tirmidhi). On the occasion of his last pilgrimage, the Prophet advised the Muslims to treat their women kindly and added: 'You have no more rights against them except that if they are guilty of manifest lewdness, you can ask them to leave your beds and strike them softly; if they improve their conduct, do not leave them helpless, because there are some rights for you over against them and some rights for them over aeainst you. The duty of woman is that she should not allow anyone to enter your house whom you dislike, nor spoil the bed which is your preserve and the duty of a man is that he should feed, clothe and treat his wife generously' (ibid.). According to a report from 'Abdullah b. 'Umar, the Prophet declared: 'The whole world is a thing to be made use of and the best thing in the world is a virtuous wife' (Muslim). On his death-bed, the Prophet's last words related to the duty of offer­ing prayers and safeguarding the rights of women and slaves. About women he said: 'Women are like prisoners in your hands and you have taken them on trust from God and the Word of God has made their private parts lawful for you; so be careful towards the treatment of women.' On another occasion the Prophet is repor­ted to have declared: 'The Angel of God advised me so many times about women that I became convinced that it is not lawful for a man to divorce his wife, except when she commits adultery' (Irshad al-Muhtaj, Huquq al-Azwaj). A report from Bahz b. Hakim states: 'I inquired of the Prophet about his teaching in respect of women. He replied: "Feed them as you feed yourselves, clothe them as you clothe yourselves and do not beat or scold them' (Kanz al-'Ummal). According to 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, he said about women: 'They are like pleasing roses,' meaning thereby that their grace and tenderness deserve special regard from men (ibid.). In regard to domestic duties, Islam has relieved women of all manual drudgery. According to strict Islamic injunctions, it is not obligatory for a woman to cook the food for her husband or children, or to wash their clothes or even to suckle the infants. A woman may refuse to do any or all of these things without this being made a ground of legal complaint against her. If she under­takes these duties out of her regard for the husband, it is an act of sheer grace. It is reported that a man once came to 'Umar, the Second Caliph, with the intention of bringing to his notice certain complaints which he had against his wife. When he reached the door of 'Umar's house, he heard the Caliph's wife railing against him. Hearing this he went back as he thought that the Caliph was himself in the same predicament and could, therefore, be hardly expected to set matters right for him. 'Umar, coming out of his house, saw the person going back. So he called him out and inquired as to the purpose which had brought him to his house. He said that he had come to him with some complaints against his wife, but turned back on finding that the Caliph himself was subject------------------------to the same treatment from his wife. 'Umar said to him that he patiently bore the excesses of his wife, because she had certain rights against him. 'Is it not true that she cooks my food, washes my clothes and suckles my children, thus relieving me of the necessity of employing a cook, a washerman and a nurse, although she is not in the slightest degree responsible for any of these duties? Not only that, I enjoy peace of mind on account of her and I am protected from committing the sin of adultery. In view of all these advantages, I put up with her excesses. You should also do the same.'
In regard to the authority of men and women in their respective spheres, the following tradition of the Prophet shows the status enjoyed by women under Islam:
Man is the ruler in his home. He will be held responsible for the conduct of his dependants, and woman is the ruler in her husband's home. She will also be held responsible for the con­duct of her dependants (Bukhari),
This tradition makes the wife cd-equal of her husband in home affairs. She is as much responsible for the conduct of domestic affairs as the husband. Only in larger matters affecting the total welfare of the family, the husband is given a degree of superiority, since two co-ordinate authorities with equal powers are likely to lead to clashes and conflicts such as may destroy the balance and poise of family life.

Divorce
As has been made clear in the previous chapter, Islam never re­garded marriage as a sacrament indissoluble except under extra­ordinary conditions. In accordance with its view of marriage as a contract, it made provision for the separation of married couples if the terms of the contract were not observed by either party. Divorce is the necessary corollary of the freedom given to men and women to choose their partners. The American authoress of Male and Female makes the sensible remark: 'With freedom to choose goes the right to change one's mind. If past mistakes are to be reparable in every other field of human relations, why should marriage be the one exception? If their choice of each other was what made marriage a real marriage, then once either makes an­other choice, its reality is gone. The spouse who clings to such a marriage is committing one of the worst acts in the American list of sins, limiting the freedom of another person, exploiting and taking advantage of someone else's past dead impulse, freezing a past mistake into a present prison.'
The idea that there is something essentially and inherently immo­ral in divorce was bequeathed to the world by Christianity and Hinduism. Its impracticability has been proved beyond shadow of all doubt, so much so that there is now a swing in the reverse direction and the danger of frequent and easy separation of married couples threatens the stability of the home and the family.
According to the Roman Catholic doctrine, a consummated Christian marriage is a sacrament and must as such remain------------valid for ever. It represents the union between Christ and the Church, and is consequently as indissoluble as that union. It is also permanent according to the law of Nature, because only a perma­nent marriage can fulfil this object. And God made it so at the beginning of our race, when He decreed that a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. In spite of this doctrine, which never could work in practice, the Roman Catholic Church allowed separation of married couples under exceptional circumstances on the ground of the invalidity of marriage. Lord Bryce has pointed out in his book, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, that the rules covering these exceptional cases 'were so numerous and so intricate that it was easy, given a sufficient motive, whether political or pecuniary, to discover some ground for declaring almost any marriage invalid'. A.man might secure a divorce by swearing that he was his wife's distant cousin, or had loved her sister in his youth, or had before his marriage stood god-father to one of her near spiritual kindred.
For a long time the doctrine of the Western Church was not accepted in full by the legislators. But since the days of Charle­magne, the canonical doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage has increasingly influenced the legislation of Western countries. It was only during the course of nineteenth and twentieth centuries that divorce was made legal in the Roman Catholic countries in the case of the Roman Catholic marriages. In the United States, South Carolina stands alone in granting no divorces whatsoever. It is the only Protestant community which now-a-days holds marriage in­dissoluble.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of the indissolubiiity of marriage except by death was never accepted by Protestant reformers. They all agreed tl at adultery should be recognised as a ground for divorce, and most of them regarded malicious desertion a second ground for the dissolution of marriage. The views of the Protestant reformers influenced the course of legislation in various Protestant countries and laws were passed permitting divorce for a number of reasons. Apart from adultery and desertion, an attempt made by one of the couples on the life of the other is specified in the law of many countries as a legitimate ground for divorce. Ill-treatment of some kind has also been laid down in some countries as a sufficient reason for the dissolution of marriage. In the United States, divorce is obtainable for cruelty. The degree of cruelty necessary is usually actual and repeated violence endangering life, limb or health. An extremely frequent ground of divorce is the condemnation of one of the parties to a certain punishment or his or her being convicted of a certain crime. In the United States, a husband who is able to support his wife but for a certain time neglects to do so may be divorced. Similarly, in some states divorce may be obtained on proof of the habitual drunkenness of either party for varying terms. In North Carolina, a husband may obtain a divorce if his wife has without good reason refused sexual inter­course to him for the space of twelve months.
Besides offences of some kind or other committed by either husband or wife and entitling the other party to demand a dissolu­tion of the marriage, there are other circumstances recognised as grounds of divorce, which may or may not involve guilt in one of the parties, but in all cases are supposed to make marriage a burden for the other spouse. Impotence in the husband or the wife, existing at the time of the marriage and afterwards, but unknown to the other party, is recognised as a legitimate ground of divorce in some law books. In England it has long been a ground for pro­nouncing an otherwise valid marriage invalid; and in the United States also divorce is commonly granted for incurable physical incapacity, if the plaintiff was ignorant of the defendant's con­dition. Other grounds of divorce, according to many law books, are contagious, venereal and other diseases, and insanity which existed at the time of marriage or prior to it with knowledge of the other party, or insanity which has been pronounced incurable or gives no reasonable hope of recovery after three or sometimes five years' duration.
These are the most general grounds of divorce laid down in modern law books. English law is the only one in Europe that re­cognises none but sexual reason either for the dissolution or the^ annulment of marriage. The Majority Report of the Royal Com­mission of 1909 recommended that divorce should, in the future, be obtainable for the following reasons: adultery; wilful desertion for three years or upwards; cruelty; incurable insanity after five years' confinement; habitual drunkenness found to be incurable from the first order of separation; and imprisonment under com­muted sentence of death.
Among Western countries, France has made divorce much.easjer. The 1792 Law of Divorce says that marriage is merely a civil Contract, and that the facility in obtaining divorce is the natural con­sequence of the individual's right of freedom which is lost if engagements are' made indissoluble. Divorce is granted on various grounds, among others, on the mutual desire of the two parties, and even at the wish of one party on the ground of incompatibility of temper subject only to a short period of delay and to the neces­sity of appearing before a family council who are to endeavour to bring about reconciliation. In 1804, however, under the provisions of Napoleon's Code Civil- des Francois, divorce was made more difficult. Mere incompatibility of temper is no longer recognised as sufficient cause for divorce. Marriage may still be dissolved on the ground of mutual consent, but on certain conditions only: the husband must be at least twenty-five years of age and the wife twenty-one; they must have been married at least for two years and not more than twenty-five years and the wife must not be over forty-five years of age; the parents or other living ascendants of both parties must give their approval; and the mutual and unwaver­ing consent of the married couple must sufficiently prove that their 'common life is insupportable to them, and that there exists in refe­rence to them a peremptory cause of divorce.'
The Soviet law goes even further than the French law in granting extreme facilities for divorce. It states that 'the ground for divorce may be either the mutual consent of the parties or the desire of one of them. If the union is not entered in the registry of books, man and woman part without formalities. If they have 'inscribed them­selves,' all that they have to do is to 'write themselves out,' that is, record their separation in the books. The law steps j& only when there are children and then not to hold the family together but to make provision for children.
We thus find that the Western world which began with the doct­rine of the indissolubility of marriage is now swinging to the other extreme by granting divorce on terms which can be regarded only as frivolous. Even in countries like England and America, where the divorce law is more stringent than in France and Soviet Russia, the number of divorces is increasing at an alarming rate. In the opinion of Dr. Westermarck, 'It is a mistake to believe that the rate of divorces is proportionate to the facility with which divorce may be obtained according to law.' Dr. Wilcox even maintains that 'the immediate, direct and measurable influence of legislation is subsi­diary, unimportant, almost imperceptible'. With regard to the United States he remarks: 'It seems that the exceptionally great divorce rates in the United States are largely due to the laxity of procedure that has grown up there. One wife alleges that her hus­band has never offered to take her "riding" (driving); another, that he does not come till ten o'clock at night, and when he does return he keeps the plaintiff awake talking.' In England, according to the same writer, the removal of a legal obstacle has distinctly increased its frequency. Shortly after the Act was passed in 1925, which gave men and women equality as regards grounds for divorce, the divorce rate began to climb, and an estimate of this increase shows that between 1924 and 1930 an addition of about 35% per year was made to the residual divorces as a result of that Act.
We have already seen that Islam recognises the necessity for divorce in cases when marital relations have been poisoned to a degree which makes a peaceful home life impossible. But Islam does not believe in unlimited opportunities for divorce on frivolous and unimportant grounds, because any undue increase in the faci­lities of divorce would destroy the stability of family life. There--fore, while allowing divorce on genuine grounds, Islam has taken great care to introduce checks and balances designed to limit the use of available facilities. Let us study in more detail the Islamic law on this point.
While permission has been given both to man and woman to obtain a release from the bond of marriage in cases of absolute necessity, the Prophet has made it clear that Islam does not regard it as desirable. A tradition of the Prophet states: 'The most repug­nant of things made lawful in the sight of God is divorce.' Another tradition says: 'Marry but do not divoice, because God does not like men and women who relish variety in sexual pleasure.'
So far as men are concerned, they have been given liberty of divorce on certain conditions. First, as regards the dower they have bestowed on their wives, they are not permitted to withhold it or take back anything from it, if they decide upon divorce. Secondly, a divorce pronounced at a single sitting does not have the effect of final separation. It is laid down as a condition that a divorce, to take legal effect, must be pronounced three times at intervals of one month each. There is some difference of opinion as to whether three pronouncements at a single sitting can have the effect of final separation. Most jurists hold that a divorce takes effect if it is pronounced three times even at a single sitting. But---------------------Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah reject this opinion and regard as one pronouncement three declarations of divorce delivered at a single sitting, so that separation does not come of at the end of three such declarations, but only when they are separated each by an interval of one month. There are strong grounds for supporting the stand taken by Imam Ahmad and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. In the first place it is obvious that the intention of law in prescribing three pronouncements of divorce separated by fixed intervals of time precedent to final separation was to leave open the opportunity of reconciliation. This intention is defeated by recognising three pronouncements delivered at a single sitting as having the effect of final separation. Secondly, there is evidence to show that the companions of the Prophet regarded this form of divorce as being morally reprehensible and involving the person responsible in a great religious sin. It is recorded that 'Umar, the Second Caliph, used to punish such persons who pronounced three divorces at a single sitting. Ibn 'Abbas, another companion of the Prophet, was asked about a person who divorced his wife in a single sitting. He said: The man was guilty of disobedience to divine commands.' 'AH is reported to have said: 'If the people faithfully observed the conditions of divorce, no one would feel sorry for the separation of his wife.' In the face of this strong' evidence, it is strange that the majority of jurists should have recognised the legal validity of an act which has been universally condemned as being highly sinful and which obviously defeats the Law-giver's intention. The law-makers of modern Muslim communities should not be bound by the legal decisions of old jurists but should boldly carry out the intention of the original Islamic law.
During the period of the first two pronouncements of divorce, the husband and the wife are required to live together as formerly, so that if the husband has acted hurriedly or in a fit of passion, he may revoke his pronouncement and normal relations may be resto­red. Again, if the husband has sexual intercourse with his wife or indulges in the preliminaries of cohabitation, the pronouncement of divorce lapses automatically without express declaration on his part. But, if no such thing has happened and the two intervals of one month each have elapsed, normal relations cannot be restored except by re-marriage. If, however, the husband makes the third and final pronouncement after this period, marital relations are completely dissolved and the divorce is complete. If the husband repents after this and wishes to have his wife again, he cannot do so, except after his wife has been married to someone else and divorced by him too. This provision has been considered necessary in order that it may act as a deterrent for husbands who are prone to act rashly without considering the consequences of their action.
Another condition laid down for husbands intending to divorce their wives is that they should not pronounce the divorce during the period of then* wive's menstruation. This condition has been deemed necessary because a woman is liable to become ill-tempered and easily irascible during the period of menstruation. This physi­cal disability leads her sometimes to act and behave in a manner which she disapproves herself on becoming clean. Another reason for this stipulation is that normal sexual relations between husband and wife are suspended for the time she undergoes her monthly course and sexual relations are commonly the basis of love and amity between husband and wife. It is possible that a couple may resume their normal attitude to each other and forget their quarrels when their sexual relations are restored after the period of mens­truation. There is a tradition that 'Abdullah b. 'Umar divorced his wife when she was having her monthly period. His father repor­ted the matter to the Prophet who became very angry and ordered that 'Abdullah should revoke his divorce and wait until his wife is clean, after which he is free to do as he liked. Another tradition states that the Prophet told Ibn 'Umar to observe the following procedure in divorcing his wife.
'Ibn 'Umar,' said the Prophet, 'you adopted a wrong method. The right one is that you should wait for tuhr (period of cleanli­ness), then pronounce a divorce during one tuhr and another during the second. During the third tuhr you should decide finally either to retain your wife or to divorce her.'
So far we have given a brief account of the rights given to hus­band for securing release from the marriage bond and the condi­tions he is required to observe. Similar rights have been given by Islam to the female sex. There are t t/o ways in which a woman is allowed to seek separation from her husband: first, through mut­ual agreement between the husband and the wife which is called Khala1; secondly, through a judicial decree by filing a suit against, the husband in a law-court. It will be seen that the wife is not at liberty, like the husband, to get herself released by an outright declaration of divorce. In case her husband refuses to release her----------from the marriage bond, she has to go to a court of law and obtain a decree in her favour. This may seem to place her at a disadvantage in comparison with her husband and it may be asser­ted that this implies inequality of rights, as between husband and wife. Actually, the intervention of the State in the matter is a device for the fuller protection of her rights. Conditions all over the world, including even Western countries, are such that a woman is not altogether free to exercise her legal rights. The hus­band can, if he so desires, place many impediments in her way. If the State does not come to her help in order to safeguard her rights, the woman may find herself handicapped in many ways, despitealltalksandpreachfngsofsexequality.lt is, therefore, in her own interest to seek the support of authority in defending and exercising her rights. This was all the more necessary in the past when woman's social position exposed her to greater difficulties.
As in the case of divorce by the husband, the legal permission given to woman to seek and obtain separation through mutual agreement or the intervention of the court does not imply mor?' approval of the act. Islam has unreservedly condemned men and women who use their legal rights of divorce on any except legiti­mate grounds and in absolutely unbearable conditions. Thus a tra­dition of the Prophet states: 'God does not like men and women who seek variety of sexual experience.' Again, 'God has showered curses on those men and women who make frequent use of divorce for the sake of sexual enjoyment.' A third report says: The Prophet of God said: 'A woman who seeks divorce from her husband with­out any excess on his part will be cursed by God and His angels.' Yet another tradition says: 'Women who make a play of their divorce rights are hypocrites.' These warnings and moral exhor­tations are intended to discourage men and women from disturbing the stability of family life and resorting to separation except in cases of unavoidable necessity. Moral dissuasion apart, there is no dispute about a woman's legal right to seek separation from her husband. This she may do either by giving up a part or the whole of the dower given her by the husband or by offering an agreed sum of money to her husband in return for his consent to release her from the marriage bond. Thus both men and women are required to undergo monetary sacrifice for securing their separation. This is likely to act as a deterrent in both cases. Should the hus­band refuse to part with his wife on any of these terms, it is open to the latter to seek the protection of law by filing a suit against him and obtaining a legal decree of separation.
Actual legal decisions by the Prophet of Islam show the spirit and principles which the law-courts should apply to cases brought by women against their husbands. The most famous case is that of Thabit b. Qais whose two wives sought divorce from him. One of them, Jamilah bint Abi Salul,' disliked his features. She came to the Prophet of God and complained against him, saying: 'O Prophet, nothing can bring him together with me. I lifted my face-covering to see him coming along with a few other men and I noticed that he is the blackest, the most short-statured and the ugliest of them.' Another report says: She said, 'By God, I don't dislike his morals or behaviour, but I cannot stand his ugliness.' According to Ibn Majah, she is reported to have said: 'By God, if fear of God did not stand in my way, I would have spit him in his face.' According to the author of Path al-Bari, Jamilah said: 'You see, O Prophet, how beautiful I am, but Thabit is an ugly person.' Bukhari reports that she said to the Prophet: 'I don't blame him for his morals or religion, but I am afraid Islam, will lose its hold upon me if I am compelled to live with him.' After hearing her complaint, the Prophet said to her: 'Will you give him back tho orchard he gave you?' She replied, 'Yes, and * also more, if he wants.' The Prophet asked her not to give more and ordered Thabit to accept the orchard and divorce her.
Another wife of Thabit b. Qais, Habibah bint Sahil, according to a report from Imam Malik and Abu Dawud, came to the Pro­phet early one morning. When the Prophet came out, he saw her standing before the door. On the Prophet's inquiring how she happened to be there, she replied: 'I and Thabit cannot pull toge­ther.' When Thabit came, the Prophet said to him: This is what your wife says about you, so leave her.' According to Ibn Majah, Habibah complained to the Prophet that Thabit had beaten him so badly as to break her bone. In any case, the Prophet, on hearing both sides of the matter, ordered dissolution of the marriage.
During the time of 'Umar, the Second Caliph, a suit of divorce was brought to him. He advised the wife not to leave her husband and try to pull on with him. The woman refused to do so. 'Umar put her in a dirty room for three drys. On the fourth day he asked her how she had fared. She said that she had real peace of mind only for those three days, whereupon 'Umar ordered dissolution of---------the marriage.
These three cases show that the mere fact of a woman becoming disgusted with her husband is sufficient ground for legal separation between them. In the case of Thabitb. Qais, the Prophet showed by his action that a woman's disapproval of her husband on physi­cal grounds is a legitimate ground for a decree of separation in her favour. It is enough for the court to satisfy itself that one of the partners has developed sufficient antipathy against the other to make reconciliation impossible. The court need not inquire into the detailed reasons of this antipathy, because a woman may dislike her husband on many grounds, some of which she may not like to state openly. There may also be reasons for disgust which may not seem valid to the court or any other arbiter, but which may be sufficient to spoil the marital relations of husband and wife. The court has no right to give its verdict on the point whether the reasons for dissatisfaction as expressed by the wife are valid. All it can do is to satisfy itself on the point whether the dissatisfaction is genuine or faked, whether it arises from causes which are tempo­rary and may disappear or it is so deep-rooted as to preclude the possibility of happier relations being restored.
It is also inadvisable for the court to inquire whether a wife seek­ing divorce is doing so because she is sexually erotic and desires a variety of sexual pleasures or her aversion to her husband springs from genuine causes. The right of a man to divorce is not limited by the condition that he should not use it for satisfying his anarc­hic sexual desire. If this is so in the case of a man, it applies equally well to women who have got equal rights. Moreover, if a woman is really disposed to be sexually anarchic, the mere fact of being unable to obtain a divorce from a law-court will not prevent her from forming illicit unions, and in such a case the court, by refus­ing a decree of separation, will be supplying an incentive to illegiti­mate sexual activity, which is morally and socially more reprehensi­ble than a frequency of divorces. The effect of a court decree in favour of separation is the same as that of the final divorce pronounced by the husband which dissolves the marriage finally and irrevocably. The couple cannot be remarried unless (he woman marries another husband and gets a divorce.
As regards monetary sacrifices involved when a woman seeks divorce from her husband, it has already been stated that the hus­band cannot claim more than he has already given his wife a dower. If the separation comes of as a result of mutual agreement without the intervention of the court, the amount has to be settled between the two partners. But if the dispute is brought to the court, the latter can decide what portion of the dower should be returned by the wife, whether the full amount or half of it or one-fourth, etc. Many jurists agree that if separation takes place as a result of the ill-treatment of the husband or his excesses, and such charges arc proved during the process of legal inquiry, the court can totally exempt the wife from repayment of the dower, or it can decide in favour of an amount less than that of the dower, according to the circumstances involved. Some jurists are also of the opinion that if the court is satisfied that the wife has no legitimate grounds for seek­ing separation and is merely the victim of anarchic sexual impulses, it can order her to pay more than her dower.
Apart from cases of ill-treatment and genuine aversion of wife against the husband, Islam recognises other grounds of divorce also. These are: (1) option of puberty; (2) refusal to provide econo­mic sustenance; (3) change of religion; (4) impotence; (5) infectious diseases in either partner; (6) wilful desertion; (7) disappearance of husband.
The Qur'an has given some importance to the opinion of the guardians in the case of a woman's marriage, but it has not with­held from her the right of final acceptance or rejection. Actual legal decisions by the Holy Prophet show that while a woman is bound to consult her guardians, she is not under any obligation to abide by their advice. Abu Dawud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal have reported a tradition from the Prophet slating that a girl complained to him saying that her father had given her in marriage against her will, whereupon the Prophet told her that she was at liberty to repudiate it. Nasa'i has given a report from Khansa' bint Khidhan that her father married her to a man whom she did not like. On hearing her complaint the Prophc^ gave her option to retain or repudiate the marriage. Sunan Daraqutni, ano­ther collection of traditions, contains a report from Jabir, one of the companions of the Prophet, stating that the Prophet ordered the dissolution of a marriage which was performed against the will of the wife. Nasa'i further gives a tradition from 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, stating that a girl was married by her father against her will, whereupon she complained to the Prophet. The Prophet gave her liberty to repudiate the marriage. On hearing this, the girl declared: 'O Prophet, I accept the decision of my father. I wanted only to show to other women that their fathers' decision is not final.' Muslim, Nasa'i, Abu Dawud and Muwatta also contain the following tradition: 'A woman previously married has a greater right than her guardians to decide her choice in marriage, while permission of a virgin should be sought in regard to her marriage.' Another report from Abu Hurairah says: 'No woman who has been married once should be remarried until she gives her permi­ssion; similarly, a virgin should not be married until she declares her consent.'
In the face of these traditions, the question arises: What is the position of minor girls married by their guardians or parents during their minority; are they free to repudiate their marriage on attain­ing puberty? Most of our old jurists give the option of puberty to the minor girls only in cases where they have been married by guardians other than their fathers or grandfathers. But if the marriage has been arranged by the father or the grandfather during the minority of the girl, they maintain, the girl is not at liberty to repudiate the marriage, except when it has been proved that the father or the grandfather is a man of loose character or that he is reputed to be a man of careless disposition. No precedent or authority has been quoted by the jurists for making an exception in favour of the father and the grandfather as distinguished from other guardians. Their opinion is obviously based on the presump­tion that the father and the grandfather, being the well-wishers of their family, cannot act against the real interest of the minor. This presumption for which no authority has ever been quoted from the Qur'an or the traditions of the Prophet is open to the following grave objections.
First, a very authentic tradition of the Prophet states that he gave away the daughter of Hamzah in marriage to 'Umar b. Abi Salamah while she was still a minor and declared that after she reached puberty, she was at liberty to repudiate the marriage. Here the Prophet did not make any exception in favour of any guardian, nor did he spssify it as a reason that because he was not the father or the grandfather of t!i2 girl, therefore she had the option of puberty. He made a general statement covering all cases. This shows that even a minor girl married by her father or grand­father has the option of puberty. Secondly, it does not stand to reason that a girl who has reached puberty should be given the
right of final choice, but a minor girl should be refused the same right. If the presumption is that the father and the grandfather cannot act in disregard of the real interests of their lineal descen­dants, it should apply to both grown-up and minor girls. Thirdly, the presumption itself has a very frail basis. There are innumerable cases where a father or a grandfather has not consulted the best interests of his descendants in deciding their future. Fourthly, even if the presumption be valid, it is quite possible that the husband of the minor girl may prove unworthy after he has grown up or he may develop habits and aptitudes ruinous to the health and happi­ness of his wife. For all these reasons the stand taken by the old jurists appears untenable and since the Muslims are not bound by the decisions of any person or persons except those of the Prophet, there is no reason why the Muslim law should not be amended in accordance with the spirit and principles made explicit by the Pro­phet in his own legal decisions.
In case a husband refuses to provide economic sustenance to his wife, there are two courses open to the court. If the husband is able to make provision for her needs, but does not do so, the court can bring pressure to bear on him and force him to look after the needs of his wife. Should the husband still refuse, the court can issue a decree of separation and the marriage will be dissolved thereafter. In case the husband is absolutely unable to provide for his wife, dissolution of the marriage should come about instantane­ously, according to the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In the opinion of Imam Shafi'i, three days' time should be given to the husband, while Imam Malik would give him one or two months.
Conversion of either partner to any religion (other than Islam) leads automatically to the dissolution of the marriage, because Islam does not allow a Muslim woman to enter into marriage union with a non-Muslim. The only exception in this case is when a Muslim woman is converted to Christianity or Judaism. In such a case the husband can retain her in marriage because Islam allows Muslim males but not Muslim females to contract marriages with the mem­bers of the Jewish and Christian communities.
If the husband is impotent, the wife can obtain a decree of separation from the law-court. But in cases where the impotency is not constitutional and incurable, one year's time may be allowed to the husband for undergoing treatment. If he regains his potency during this period, the marriage cannot be dissolved. The medieval-----------------jurists have, however, laid down the following conditions which cannot stand rational scrutiny and do not agree with the spirit and intention of Islamic law:
(1)That a decree for separation is eligible only if the wife was ignorant, prior to marriage, of the impotence of her prospective husband.
(2) If the wife was ignorant of the fact but consented to retain her marriage when she came to know of it, she cannot demand separation later on. '
(3) If the husband, after treatment, is able to have sexual inter* course even once, the wife loses the right to demand separation.
These conditions are very unfair and destroy the intention of the marriage and divorce laws, for the object of marriage in Islam is to provide a stable family life and to prevent the formation of illicit sexual unions. Both these objects* are defeated if the co'ndi-tions laid down by the older jurists are given legal sanction. If a woman foolishly commits herself to marry a man whom she knows to be impotent, it is just possible that she may repent her action somewhat later when she knows by experience what association with such a person means. It is a very heavy punishment to poison her whole life for a single act of misjudgment or folly. It is enough if she has to forgo her dower as a result of her separation. The same is true, of a woman who comes to know after the marriage that her husband is impotent but, out of sentiment or natural nobility of mind, consents to live with him. It is quite possible that later experience may render her disconsolate or she may be unable to bear a long period of sexual abstinence. If she is afraid that the continuation of marriage would expose her to sexual temptations which she may not be able to stand, she is perfectly justified in claiming separation. To refuse a legal decree on the ground that she had earlier consented to the continuation of marriage is to drive her to sin. But marriage is intended to safeguard men and women from sin and not to force them into situations where they find no alternative except to disregard their faith and conscience.
In regard to infectious diseases and other noxious ailments, there are three classes of opinions among the older jurists. One class of jurists holds that neither partner can demand separation on the ground of noxious or infectious disease in the other partner. 'Ali and 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud among the companions of the Pro-phet, and Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Abu Yusuf among the
jurists, belong to this school of thought. The other school holds that in all diseases which prevent sexual intercourse between man and woman, such as lunacy, leprosy, venereal diseases, etc., either party has full right to demand separation. This is the opinion of the Maliki school. Tmam Shafi'i says that lunacy and leprosy en­title a husband or a wife to demand separation but not venereal and other diseases. Of these three schools, the opinion of the second school is more in accord with the spirit and principles of the Holy Qur'an. According to the Qur'an, the two essential factors in healthy marital relations are the safeguarding of sex morality and the maintenance of love and compassion between husband and wife. Both these factors become non-existent in cases where the husband and wife develop antipathy against each other owing to physical causes. Where there is the slightest danger of either party falling into sexual aberration due to continuance of marriage, it is much more advisable to dissolve the marriage rather than expose the partner to the risk of sexual promiscuity.
In regard to the right of a wife to demand separation when her husband is missing or has disappeared, there is considerable diffe­rence of opinion among the religious scholars. The Qur'an as well as the traditions of the Prophet are silent on this matter. Among the companions of the Prophet, 'Umar, 'Uthman. Ibn 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas are of the opinion that the wife should be ordered to wait for a period of four years. 'Ali and Ibn Mas'ud, on the other hand, hold the opinion that the wife should wait until the husband returns or the fact of his death is ascertained. Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafi'i have expressed the same opinion.
Both these opinions seem to err on the side of caution and in­volve manifest wrong to the wife. They are also opposed to the principles of the Holy Qur'an. For example, in permitting condi­tional polygamy the Holy Qur'an has stated clearly: 'And you have not in your power to do justice between wives, even though you may covet it, but be not disinclined from one with total disinclina­tion, so that you leave her as it were, in a suspense' (iv. 129). Again, in enunciating the rules of conduct for the persons intend­ing to divorce their wives, the Qur'an says: 'And when you divorce women and they reach their prescribed time, then either retain them in good fellowship or set them free with liberality, and do not retain them for injury so that you exceed the limits, and who­ever does this is unjust to his own soul' (ii. 231). Further, in the-------------------case of husbands who swear not to go near their wives, the Qur'an says: For those who swear that they will not go in to their wives should wait for four months, meaning that such sexual abstinence should not last more than four months. If the husband does not break his oath after this period, the wife is entitled to ask for separation. These three verses show that the Qur'an does not allow a husband to hold his wife in suspense for more than a limited period. How then is it permissible to keep a woman waiting not for months but for years, simply because no trace of her husband could be found? During the caliphate of 'Umar, there was a very striking incident which throws further light on the spirit in which such cases should be dealt with. It is said that while 'Umar was carrying out his nocturnal vigil, he heard a woman singing erotic verses in which she gave expression to the unbearable pain of separation from her husband and added:'If there were no God, this bed would not be empty of a male partner.''Umar found, on making inquiries, that her husband was fighting on the war-front. He came home and asked his widowed daughter how long a woman could bear the pang of sexual abstinence. After some hesitation she told him that six months was the maximum period. 'Umar at once ordered that no soldier should be sent on war for a period longer than six months. After six months of active service, every soldier should be given compulsory leave to return home. If it is recognised that a woman cannot forgo sexual enjoyment for a period of more than six months, why should it not be applied to cases of missing husbands? How can the wife be forced to wait for four years or for a longer period if such compulsion is likely to drive her into the quagmire of sin, and who is going to provide for her needs during all this period? Obviously the demands of elementary justice and the principles enunciated by the Holy Qur'an have been ignored in this respect.
It is for these reasons, probably, that the jurists of all schools have adopted the rules laid down by Imam Malik which are more liberal and involve less hardship to the wives of missing husbands. According to Imam Malik, three situations may arise requiring separate decisions:
(1) If the missing husband has left no property wherewith the wife may provide for her needs, the court shall immediately order dissolution of the marriage and set the wife free for marriage with another man. The • Shafi'i and Hanbali schools also agree to this
rule as, in their opinion, failure to provide economic sustenance to the wife is itself a sufficient ground for the dissolution of the marriage.
(2) The husband has left property but the wife is so young that she cannot be expected to bear sexual abstinence without running the risk of sin. In this case the court can fix a period of one year or six months or even a smaller period, within which the wife will have to wait for the return of her husband, after which the marriage will be dissolved. In urgent cases the court may order instantaneous dissolution of marriage. It is not necessary for the court to force from the wife an express declaration of her inability to withstand sexual temptation. It is the duty of the court to come to a judgment on this point after studying the situation.
(3) The husband has left property and there is also no danger of the Wife falling a prey to sexual temptation. In this case the follow­ing steps have been recommended:
If the missing husband was lost in a Muslim country or in an­other civilised country having diplomatic relations with Muslim countries, the wife will be asked to wait for four years and the Government will order a search to be made for the man.
If he was lost in a war, a full search should be made, after which the wife should be ordered to wait for one year.
If he was lost during a local civil commotion, a full search should be ordered after the completion of which the marriage will be dis­solved without further waiting.
It would appear that even the Maliki law, which is followed now by all schools, leaves room for hardship. Six months is the reaso n-able maximum period for which the wife can wait. No further delay appears reasonable keeping in view the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an.
Opinions differ as to what would happen if the missing person is found after or without a search. 'Umar holds that if the husband returns before the wife is married to another person, the wife should belong to him, but if she is already married, the former husband loses all rights on her, even though her second marriage may remain unconsumtnated. Imam Malik has adopted this opinion. 'Ali, another companion of the Holy Prophet, however, was of opinion that the wife belongs to her first husband, whether she marries and has children or remains unmarried. If the marriage has been consummated, the wife is also entitled to her dower from the second husband. The Hanafi school has adopted the same rule.According to 'Uthman, the Third Caliph, the returning husband will have the option to take back his wife or leave her and have his dower repaid to him. If he is willing to take back his dower or remit it to his former wife, the wife will be left with the second husband. Otherwise, she will be separated from her second husband and ordered to wait for a period of four months, after which she will become the wife of her first husband. Moreover, she would be entitled to receive her dower from the second husband.
The above is a general picture of the rights given to women by Islam for demanding separation from their husbands. As will be seen, Islam has maintained more or less absolute equality between man and woman in this regard. There is no doubt that man enjoys a greater degree of freedom in this respect, because he has no need to resort to a court of law. But we have also explained the circum­stances which made this restriction necessary in the case of woman. In fact, there are so many ways open to a woman to secure her freedom from an unhappy marriage that if she fails on any one ground to obtain a decree in her favour, some other ground re­mains available to her and the court can hardly refuse a decree of separation to a wife who is determined to seek separation.

Social Restrictions on Men and Women
Freedom and equality are concepts which have been very much misused by the modern world. Thers is no doubt that human pro­gress depends to a large extent on freedom, and equality, and a society which creates artificial inequalities and places unnatural obstacles in the way of human freedom slowly degsnerates and dies out. But it is equally true that real freedom does not lie in unres­tricted license and presupposes as its inevitable corollary certain wholesome natural restrictions. Similarly, equality cannot mean a total obliteration of diversity arising from the natural and inborn differences between man and woman. Real equality can be based only on an inequality of function where each individual and each sex is entrusted with the tasks to which its natural endowments and inherent qualities qualify it most. The Western civilisation has placed undue and exaggerated emphasis on self-assertion and self-expression for the historical reason that its fundamental concepts arose out of a struggle against artificial repressions. The result is that the assertive and expressive tendencies of human beings have brought about internal conflicts which threaten to its foundation the very structure of civilisation. A balance between self-expression and self-repression, freedom and order, uniformity and diversity should be achieved to put human society on a stable basis. If this is true in the large spheres of human relations, it is equally true in 'the sex relations of men and women. An expert on sex psychologylike Havelock Ellis says: 'We have always to remember that the whole art of living lies in a fine balance of expression and repres­sion. For repression—understood in a wide sense and not merely in the special sense sometimes given to it by psychoanalysts—is as central a fact of life as expression. We are constantly at the same time repressing some impulses and expressing other impulses. There is no necessary penalty in the repression, for it is essential to ex­pression.'1
Islam has placed certain restrictions on men as well as on women in order to regulate their sex and family life both of which it regards as the foundations of a stable and progressive civilisation. The restrictions on men and women differ in accordance with their vary­ing functions in society. To the extent that these functions differ in the case of the two sexes, their rights and responsibilities also differ and the restrictions they are required to observe also differ. The advocates of a bald and dead equality who do not believe in the functional differentiation of the sexes will cite them as a proof of unequal treatment. Actually, these restrictions arise out of the different social responsibilities of either sex. If it is true that motherhood is one of the essential responsibilities of women, that sexual aberration in women leads to more complications and more serious consequences than the misconduct of men; if, again, it is true that men and women differ in the types (not degrees) of their natural gifts and that the physical powers of women are attuned to particular types of work only, then it is easy to see that, within the general framework of fundamental sex equality, their rights, duties and the channels of their self-expression and self-repression should also differ.
Saner intellectuals even among the Westerners have always reco­gnised the functional differentiation between the two sexes. They also admit that women are better fitted for particular types of work than men and ill-suited for other tasks. For example, the American authoress of Male and Female, Margaret Mead, discuss­ing this point in connection with her researches into the life of savage tribes, writes: 'Thus if the theorist about men and women's natural work-rhythms had based his theories on Jatmul, he would easily have come up with a picture of man as the lineal descendant of a nomadic hunter, capable of strong output of effort, but demanding long periods of recuperation, and a picture of women as better fitted by nature for the routine ta*sks of everyday life, unre­sisting . and unrebelling against a world in which their work was never done and their hands were hardly ever at rest.' Proceeding further, the same authoress says: 'If research finally demonstrates any genuine difference in the capacity to tolerate monotony, or to benefit by working in irregular spurts of energy, we still have to consider whether the most felicitous results are obtained by constru­cting a society in which women's work, while more monotonous and demanding, is also keyed up to the cycle of menstruation and pregnancy, and men's work, less monotonous and demanding, is the work that can be depended upon in any emergency, since men are subject to no such periodic rise and fall in capacity as women. Possibly we may find instead that if all work is keyed low enough so that women do not suffer too inappropriate demands during their periodic fluctuations in capacity, but men are not prevented from constructing crises if they find them congenial, the gain in adaptation of rhythm between the sexes may be greater than any loss that comes from not pitching the work-rhythms of each sex as perfectly as possible to their distinctive periodicities.'
Now this periodic rise and fall in the capacity of svork among women is an undeniable physical fact that alters their function in society and excludes them from certain kinds of work. A civilisa­tion which keeps this fact in view in the allocation of rights and duties will naturally suggest different social restrictions for women with a view to preventing them from transgressing their natural sphere of duties.
A more important physical factor which has a decisive bearing on the functions of women and marks out a different path of life for them is the physical periodicity of women arising from menstru­ation. Menstruation is by no means an ordinary phenomenon of local manifestation. It is but the most obvious symptom of the general monthly waves which periodically flow through a woman's body, affecting to a greater or lesser extent all her organs. The observations of a great many medical authorities have shown that during the process of menstruation most significant physical and mental changes are observed in women. The whole nervous system of women is affected during this period and it is the nervous system upon which depends the normal functioning of the general physio­logical well-being of women. Vemilow in his Biological Tragedy of Womansays that women's mental equilibrium is upset during the period of menstruation. He records his observation that a woman st ject-car conductor pulls out the wrong tickets and is muddled in counting the change. A menstruating motor-woman drives the stieet-car slowly and with hesitancy, becoming confused at crossings. Tie lady typist's fingers strike the wrong keys. The woman dentist cannot find the proper instrument. An actress is not in the right mood and makes wrong gestures. Writing in Man and Woman, Havelock Ellis observes that there is at this period greater impres­sionability, greater suggestions and more or less diminished self-control. It is at this time that sudden caprices, fits of ill-temper, moods of depression, impulses of jealousy, outbursts of self-con­fession are chiefly liable to occur. At times menstruation produces abnormal and diseased conditions. There may be so high a degree of physical pain and disability that the woman is really an invalid for several days every month. On the basis of these facts Havelock Ellis had to utter a note of warning that 'it is no longer possible to regard the physiological periodicity of women and the recurring menstrual function as the purely private concern of the woman whom it affects'. Such a view necessarily leads to the conclusion that the public activities work and employment of women must be conditioned and limited by their physiological peculiarities. It can­not be that men and women are treated as equals in the field of industrial employment or in the matter of political activity. If an attempt is made to create an artificial equality which in fact does not exist, it is likely to break down with serious consequences.
Motherhood is another important factor in the life of women which conditions, limits and particularises their sphere of activity. In the modern world, a large number of well-to-do women, under the influence of a wrong conception of equality, have increasingly turned away from this noble life-vocation. Various theories and suggestions have been propounded to prove that motherhood is not essential to the life and happiness of women and that alternative institutions can be evolved which will free the mothers from the burden of rearing and training their children, thus allowing them greater liberty of movement and enabling them to share with men the larger activities of social and political life. While no sane person will maintain that women should be kept confined to domestic life or should in no case participate in the wider spheres of collective activity, many will agree that the duties of motherhood form the primary concern of a woman's life, and a society which allows its female members to plunge into the wider spheres of life at the cost of their primary avocation is bound to suffer from maladjustment. It is only women who are already past the age of motherhood and can easily spare time and energy for other duties that should be really welcome in the political and industrial fields. But by far the largest number of women cannot escape, if they are to fulfil their function in society, the burden of their primary biological and social responsibility. Of course, the more fortunate among them, by reason of their economic condition or limited family, can do, if they are so minded, part-time work in other fields but not in a way which might disturb their main functions. The saner elements among Western writers and thinkers have not overlooked this aspect of the matter and we shall give a few brief quotations from them.
Writing about the depth of maternal instinct is women, Havelock Ellis quoted from Dr.Westermarck, The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization. says: 'Most people, certainly most women, feel at moments, or at some period in their lives, a desire for children,' and in women the longing for a child may become so urgent and imperative that we may regard it as scarcely less imperative than the sexual impulse. Van de Velde3 writes: To be a woman means to have the desire 'to become a mother both physically and mentally.' He admits that 'there are women, and presumably always have been women, although their number may be relatively very small, who feel such a strong antagonism to motherhood that they refuse to marry for that reason,' but he adds: The absence of the maternal instinct in the modern woman is really nothing 'but a pose. The maternal instinct exists in spite of this, although there may be only one child. . . .Where it really is repressed, because some women think it fashionable, or because of decadence or love of pleasure, it will also be seen that such repression has its revenge sooner or later. A more than temporary repression of the mother instinct is, practi­cally speaking, impossible.'
A prominent American authoress Margaret Mead writes in Male and Female: 'Women may be said to be mothers unless they are taught to deny their child-bearing qualities. Society must dis­tort their sense of themselves, pervert their 'inherent growth patterns, perpetrate a series of. . .outrages upon them, before they will cease to want to provide, at least for a few years, for the child they have already nourished for nine months within the safe circle of their own bodies.'The same writer quotes the experience of a psychiatrist working in the United States who said: 'I have never seen a woman who was socially and physically able to have child­ren and who refused to have children, who did not suffer psycho­logically from that refusal.'
Writing about the nursery and other institutions for the educa­tion of children in order to relieve mothers of their educational responsibilities, Havelock Ellis says in his book, On Life and Sex: 'The idea has been put forward (first of all by Plato in the famous fifth book of his Republic) that the infant should be removed , from its natural parents and placed in the hands of ;nurses skilfully trained in all the science and art of modern hygiene in general and puericulture in particular. Certainly, it is possible to find innume­rable parents who are completely and lamentably ignorant of this science and this art. This may be specially so in those lands of communistic tendency, like Soviet Russia, where the Platonic ideal is most commended. But to be content to leave the mothers in ignorance and to train up in the knowledge of the duties of mater­nity a body of women who are not intended to be mothers, except for other women's children, seems a perverted attempt to escape the difficulty. It is not calculated to benefit, and still less to render happy, the real mothers, the artificial mothers or the children. An institution on so unreal a foundation cannot possibly compete with one on a sound biological basis which is just as susceptible to any necessary cultivation and development as the other.. . . The legiti­mate method of approaching the problem—as is constantly becom­ing more widely recognised—lies in training the real mothers and, so far as possible, before they have begun to be mothers... . The establishment of Schools for Mothers, in some countries facilitated by law, constitutes a noble step along this path.'
In regard to the advisability and fitness of woman for work in the wider sphere of social activity, Havelock Ellis expresses an opi­nion which agrees with our own view which we have given above, namely, that women who have had the experience of motherhood and whose maternal duties are over have more justification as well as ability to take part in such activity than those whom mother­hood calls for dedication to domestic duties. Writing in his book,
On Life and Sex, Ellis says; 'There is nothing that is so much nee­ded as the "maternal in politics," or in all sorts of non-political .channels of social service and none can be better fitted for such service than those who have had an actual experience of mother­hood and acquired the knowledge that such experience should give. There are numberless other ways besides social service in which mothers who have passed the age of forty, provided they possess the necessary aptitudes, can more profitably apply themselves than in hampering or pampering their adult children. It is by wisely cul­tivating their activities in a larger sphere that women whose chief duties in the narrower domestic sphere are over may better ensure their own happiness and the welfare of others than either by fret­ting and obstructing or by worrying over their own children who are no longer children. It is quite true that children may go astray even when they have ceased to be children. But the time to implant seeds of virtue, the time to convey a knowledge of life, was when they were small. If it was well done, it only remains to exercise faith and trust. If it was done ill, nothing done later will compen­sate, for it is merely foolish for a mother who could not educate her children when they were small to imagine that she is able to educate them when they are big.'
Writing about the desirability of close mother-child relations du­ring the period of infancy which is completely non-existent in collec­tive social institutions where women, other than mothers, take care of children, Dr. Westermarck writes: 'According to Havelock Ellis, the mortality of artificially fed infants during the first year of life is seldom less than double, and sometimes as much as three times that of the breastfed, or even more. He also points out that the advantages for an infant being suckled by its mother are greater than can be accounted for by the mere fact of being suckled rather than hand-fed, because the infant's best food is that elabo­rated in his mother's body. This has been shown by Vitray, who found from the statistics of Astel-Dien at Lyons that infants suckl­ed by their mothers have a mortality of only twelve per cent, while in the case of infants suckled by strangers the mortality rises to thirty-three per cent.'4
It may be said that the progress of science may so lighten the manual burden of women that even after discharging their full responsibilities at home, mothers may be enabled to spend a larger and larger portion of their time outside their homes in social, political and industrial activity. While nobody would grudge such a situation, provided it means equal facilities for all mothers and not merely for a few born with silver spoons in their mouths, it is after all not so certain that the increasing use of mechanical devices would bring about the desired change. The following quotation from Margaret Mead is worth-reading in this connection: 'There was a time also when in the first fine flush of laundries and bakeries, milk deliveries and canned foods, it did look as if American life was being enormously simplified. A vacuum cleaner was a great addition to a home that kept the standard of a carpet-sweeper and a broom, laundries were a godsend to a household whose routine of sheet-changing was geared to the old-fashioned wash-tub, and bakeries to homes in which the making of bread had dominated one whole day. But just as our new medical palliatives are creating new vulnerabilities and new disease states, so the new equipment has not led to more leisure, more time to play with the baby, more time to curl up and read by an open fire or to help the P.T.A., but has merely combined with other trends in making the life of the American home-maker not easier, but more exacting. Most urban-living women do not realise that, as the Bryn Mawr report shows, house-keeping activities consumed 60.65 hours a week in a typical farm family, 78.35 in urban household in cities of over 100,000. This was in pre-war days, and in a world that has been moving steadily towards a forty-hour week on the job.'
Now, if these facts are true, they show that even the mechanical improvements of an industrial civilisation cannot release mothers for wholetime work outside their homes, and a pattern of social life which seeks to make men and women equal in this respect is bound to produce unpleasant consequences. There remains one final argument to justify the full participation of women in fields other than the sphere of domestic life. It is said that special gifted women should be given full opportunity to utilise their gifts for social and political service and to that extent they should be absolved of the responsibilities of motherhood and domestic life. This is true. But it should not be .overlooked that special gifts can be multiplied and passed on to future generations on a wider scale, if the specially gifted woman undertakes the responsibilities of « *h» ar— --.I-——U_,
SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS ON MEN AND WOMEN oj
from 'the burden of motherhood falls down, because the social service which such women can render may be more effectively rendered if they can become proper mothers. A woman who has borne two gifted children and brought them up under her gifted training really does greater service to society than if she exercises her gifts in other ways. Of course, if she can combine motherhood with social or political service, nothing should be allowed to stand in her way, because then her utility will increase tenfold. But motherhood is the essential vocation of a woman's life which should not be sacrificed for any other consideration.
It is in view of all the facts and considerations we have stated above that Islam has laid down certain social restrictions both on men and women. Sjme of them are common to either sex, while some are different and arise from a particular conception of womanly duties. On the whole, the Islamic pattern of life is one in which woman has her main functions confined to home life. This does not mean that she is completely debarred from going out or taking part in wider activities, as the old-fashioned Muslims main­tain. But there is no doubt that Islam ' disapproves of a social pattern in which women neglect their primary and essential func­tions or plunge into wider spheres of activity at the cost of their primary duties. Women who have the time and the ability to do useful service in the social or political field are not prevented by Islam to enter these fields, provided it does not prejudice or impede their functions at home. Let us now examine in more detail what these restrictions are which Islam places on the liberty of men and women in the interest of sexual purity and the stability of family life.
Among the common restrictions on men and women, the first relates to the duty of behaving with modesty in public. About this the Qur'an says: 'Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them. Surely Allah is aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except ... to their hus­bands, or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or sons of their husbands, or their brothers or the sons of their brothers, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or male servants not having need (of women) or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women, and let them not strike their feet, so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known' (xxiv. 30-31).
In these verses, apart from the common duty of casting down one's looks in public, where men and women may both be present, the Holy Qur'an has laid down two special restrictions on women, namely, that they shall not make a display of their elegance and ornamentation or behave in such a way as to draw the attention of men towards their ornaments and beauty. The Prophet said that the first look which is generally involuntary is pardonable, but not the second look, which is cast for further sexual satisfaction.
This is meant both for men and women. Similarly, a tradition quoted by Abu Dawud says: 'O 'Ah"! do not have a second look after the first one, because the latter is not punishable, but the former is.'
Another restriction which is common to both sexes is the com­pulsory duty of keeping certain parts of the body covered. These parts which should be kept covered in any case and not exposed to any person, except to the wife or the husband, or when medical or other pressing necessities require exposure, are called Satr. For men the portion of the body beginning from the knees and extend­ing to-the navel has been fixed as Satr. A tradition of Daraqutni reported by Abu Ayyub Ansari says: 'What is above the knees and what is below the navel should be kept covered.' Another tradition reported by 'AH states: 'Do not expose your thighs to anyone and do not look at the thighs of a living or dead person.' For women the entire body, excepting hands, feet and face, is included in the Satr. A tradition of Abu Dawud says: 'When a woman reaches the age of puberty, no parts of her body should be kept exposed ex­cept the face and the hands extending to the joints of the wrist.* Just as men have been forbidden to wear pure silk to prevent luxurious living, women have been forbidden to use thin clothing .which, instead of covering and hiding the features of their body, makes them all the more prominent Asma bint Abu Bakr, the sister of the Prophet's wife, 'Ayeshah, once came to the Prophet wearing a thin dress which did not properly cover her body. The Prophet at once turned away his look and said: 'Asma! when a woman has reached the age of puberty, it is not proper that any part of her body should be seen except her face, hand and feet.' Another tradition states: 'God has cursed those women who
remain naked even after putting on their dress.'Similarly, the corpus of traditions collected by Muslim contains one which states: 'Women who remain naked even after putting on dress and draw others into temptation or walk and move in an alluring manner shall not enter paradise, nor get even its scent.*
There are some special restrictions on men circumscribing their freedom of action with a view to guarding their chastity and sexual purity. The entry of men in the houses of other persons is forbid­den except with the permission of the inmates. The Qur'an says: 'O men who believe! do not enter the houses of other people until you have asked their permission and when you do enter, salute them' (xxiv. 27). Further, with a view to guarding against the po­ssibility of men finding the female members of their own house without proper covering, it is laid down that no male member should enter his house at night, in the early morning and during midday time of siesta and rest without previous notice. The Qur'an says: 'A nd when the children among you have attained to pubsrty, let them seek permission as those before them sought permission' (xxiv. 59). Strangers of the male sex are required to be circumspect, if they have to ask for something from the female inmates of a house. The Qur'an says on this point: 'And when you ask of them any article, ask of them from behind a curtain; this is purer for your hearts and for their hearts' (xxxiii. 53). Another restriction is that no man or woman is permitted to remain alone with a mem­ber of the opposite sex except his or her partner, but women who have passed the age of child-bearing or those with whom, owing to intimate blood-relationship, marriage cannot be contracted are ex-cepted: for example, brothers, sisters, parents, nephews, nieces, etc. A tradition reported by 'Aqabah b. 'Amir states: Do not go near women when they are alone. One of the Ansar asked: What about the husband's elder and younger brothers? The Prophet said: 'Inti­macy with them is to be avoided as death.' Another tradition says: 'Do not go near any woman in the absence of her husband because Satan is circulating as blood in your veins.' 'Amr b. 'As reports a saying from the Prophet: 'The Prophet of God forbade us to go near women except with the permission of the husband' (Tirmidhi). Tirmidhi gives a further tradition saying: 'No man should from this day go near a woman unless there are one or two persons with him.' Touching of-women is also forbidden, except in cases of grave emergency endangering life or health. A tradition says: 'If aperson touches a woman with whom he has no legitimate relations, his hands will be burnt on the Day of Judgment.' Whenever * wo­man or a party of women came to the Prophet for taking the pledge of Islam, he refused to stretch his hands. Once Umaymah bint Ruqayqah came with a few women to take the pledge and as­ked the Prophet to give his hand. The Prophet refused saying: 'I do not shake hands with women; verbal declaration is enough for them.'
All these restrictions on men are intended to guard sexual purity. If chastity is of any real and lasting social value, there is no doubt that such restrictions are justified, a§ they prevent men and women of various disposition from falling into temptation. For those who have already been corrupted and become used to sexual indecency, these and other restrictions are of no avail.
We now come to special restrictioES on women. Two of them we have already mentioned, namely, that women should dot display their beauty and finery to anyone else except their husbands and a few intimate relations with whom they cannot enter into marriage: for example, brothers, fathers, nephews, etc., and that shall not strike their feet in such a way as to draw the attention of men. Other restrictions are specified by the Qur'an in the following verses:
O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other women. If you fear God, be not soft in speech lest in whose heart is a disease yearns, and speak good word. And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the ostentation of the days of Ignorance (xxviii. 22).
O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the wo­men of the believers that they let down on their bosoms their overgarments (xxx. 59).
Say to the believing men that they cast down tneir looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them. Surely, Allah is aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-covering over their bosoms and not display their ornaments except to their husbands, or their... (xxiv. 30-31).
in the first verse women are forbidden to indulge in alluringly soft speech which may raise amorous hopes in the person spoken to. This is a necessary and natural safeguard, as speech in one of the primary sources of sexual excitation. In the opinion of Van de Velde, speech has an overpowering effect on sexual passions. Writing in the second chapter of his Ideal Marriage, he observes: 'The tone-colour of a voice, and the intonation of a single word— and it may be a word with no special meaning or associations in itself—may excite incredible intensity of desire. The unique and precious significance that a woman's voice can give to "you" or "thou" can suffice to overwhelm a man's powers of endurance and control, or to bring about the climax of erotic expression in the organism.' Women have, therefore, been ordered by Islam not to speak in a soft or sexually sweet tone.
The second verse prescribes a certain mode of dress for women which is designed to guard themselves and the members of the opposite sex from falling into sexual temptation. This injunction has been further clarified in the following verse which says that women should keep all portions of their body fully coverd except such as must necessarily become exposed. Explaining this injunction Maulana Muhammad AH writes a note (1751) on pages 701-02 of his translation of the Holy Qur'an (1935 edn.): 'To guard the rela­tions between males and females and to check a too free intermingl­ing of men and women, the Qur'an now lays down another injunc­tion in addition to that which requires both sexes to go abroad with their looks cast down. One part of the injunction is common to both sexes: both must keep their looks cast down and both must guard their private parts. Both men and women must observe some further directions. The injunction which relates to women in particular is to keep their ornaments concealed. There is a diffe­rence of opinion as to what zinat or ornament means. According to some it includes the beauty of the body, while according to others it is exclusively applied to external adornments (Razi). The use of the same word in the concluding portion of the verse, let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known, clearly supports the latter view. .. .But even according to those who include the beauty of the body in the significance of zinat, it is permissible for a woman to have her hands and face uncovered (Razi), as being allowed under the exception, what ap­pears thereof, as without uncovering these it would be impossible for women to take part in any business; the rest of the body and the ornaments upon it, whether in the form of tight clothes or of gold and silver ornaments, are to be kept concealed by a long head-covering or, say, an overcoat. According to Kashshaf.. . except what appears thereof means. . .except that which it is custo­mary and natural to uncover. The customs of different societies would therefore allow a variation, and one rule cannot be laid down for all. According to Qaffal the meaning of the word is. . . except that which a person discloses usually, and in the case of women this means the face and the two hands (Razi). Thus a woman when going out should have herself covered over by an external wrapper or an overcoat, it being permissible to leave the hands and the face uncovered. The exposure of such parts as the neck, the bosom or the arms is forbidden, as also the display of decora­tions. . . .'
The modern 'civilised' society has taken precisely to those forms of dress which expose and do not conceal a woman's beauty. The Qur'an which regards chastity as one of the basic moral and social values has directed its injunctions against these ultra modern forms of dress which are meant more to reveal than to conceal. The justi­fication for these restrictions lies in the hidden springs of sex psy­chology. Let us quote Van de Velde again on this point. He says in Ideal Marriage:
The male costume of modern times is not as a rule specially sexually accentuated.
The exact contrary is the ease with female dress, which of late has followed primitive and tropical patterns, and aims not at concealing but at enhancing physical charms. From the- earliest times, and even when it had to serve as covering from intense cold, it has tended to accentuate and follow the lines of secon­dary sexual characteristics. Examples are numerous: for instance, the low-cut bodice—'decollete' of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the corset, which in its original form literally lifted and pressed forward the bosom, in a dangerously painful fashion; and the wasp-waist, which was constructed in order to emphasize the curves of the bust and the hips. Or, again, the 'Tournure' :>r 'bustle' of the eighties, which was at first only meant to dis­creetly indicate the roundncss of the feminine posterior—in itself "an important sexual attraction, but which became so exaggerated and unwieldy that it ended by giving the ladies of the most fashionable society a deplorable resemblance to Hottentots.
Fashions such as those of the Directoire and contemporai periods, which, instead of uncovering the largest possible amour of epidermis, drape the covered portion in light and clingin fabrics, which suggest rather than conceal outlines and give add tional suppleness to movements, have a particularly alluring effec —much more so than that of nudity. Women have always recc gnized and utilized this form of charm in their veils shawls an shawl-dances, etc.
In view of these facts, it is impossible not to agree that th Quranic restrictions on female dress are not only rational bi necessary.
One of the Quranic verses quoted above states that women shouli stay at home and not wander about displaying their beauty am finery. This verse does not mean that they should never go out am remain in perpetual confinement, since otherwise the Quranic in junctions about dress and movement of women would becom meaningless. The injunction emphasises the fact that their horn should form the centre of their interest and activity and then should be no unnecessary intermingling of the sexes in daily life This interpretation is supported by a famous tradition of the Pro phet in connection with 'Umar's objection against the appearanc of the Prophet's wives outside their homes. Once Sauda, a wife o the Prophet, came out on some private business. 'Umar recognise< her and complained to the Prophet that she was not observing th Quranic restrictions, whereupon the Prophet replied: 'They are per mitted to go out for satisfying their real wants.'
Apart from restrictions on dress and speech, as indicated above women are also forbidden to use scents or perfumes when goin] out. A tradition from Tirmidhi's collection states: 'The Prophet o God said that a woman who uses scent or perfume when passinj through streets is a profligate woman.' A tradition of Muwatta b; Imam Malik says: 'When a woman goes to mosque for orferirfj prayers, she should not use perfume or scent.' Here again Islan has shown great insight into sex psychology. Perfumes and odour: play a great role in exciting sexual emotion. The subject has beer discussed in detail by Van de Vclde in his Ideal Marriage in whicl he explains how women have always known the sexual effects o odours and perfumes and utilised them for different purposesVan de Velde goes so far as to remark: 'I am of opinion that ex­perts who use perfumes as aphrodisiacs for their own emotions— perhaps without being fully conscious of this aim—are generally women.'
Within the home also men and women are required to observe certain rules of decency. Although the sex relations of husband and wife are not subject to any kind of restrictions, the Prophet has given directions that even in their utmost privacy, husband and wife should conduct themselves with decorum and refrain from acts of mere anjmality. Thus, according to a tradition of Ibn Majah, the Prophet is reported to have said: 'Whenever one of you goes to his wife, he should not uncover himself completely like asses.' A wife of the Prophet, according to Tirmidhi, reports that she never saw the Prophet completely naked. The same ideal of decency and chastity finds expression in the restrictions placed on men and women in their family life. These are explained in the following Quranic verses:
O you who believe! let those whom your right hands possess and those of you who have not attained to puberty ask per­mission of you three times: before the morning prayer, and when you put off your clothes at midday in the summer, and after the prayer of the nightfall; these are three times of privacy for you; neither is it a sin for you nor for them besides these times, be­cause some of you must go around waiting upon others; thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
And when the children among you have attained to pubsrty, let them seek permission as those before them sought permission; thus does Allah make clear to you His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
And as for women advanced in years who do not hope for marriage, it is no sin for them if they put off their clothes without displaying their ornaments; and if they restrain themselves, it is better for them (xxiv. 58-60).
Here the Qur'an has laid down three rules for the observance of the male and female members of the house. Women who have attained puberty are usually found half-dressed or lightly dressed at night, during midday in the summer or in the early morning.
The male members of the family, with the exceptions already stated, as well as male servants should not enter their rooms or come inside the house without previous notice. Barring these stated periods, they are free to move about as they like. It automatically follows from this that the Qur'an desires that women should keep themselves fully dressed during business hours, so that no oppor­tunity of temptation occurs for males or females. But women who have passed the age of childbirth are exempt from this restriction. Children when they reach the age of puberty are also required to observe these directions.
It is clear from all that has been said above with regard to the Islamic restrictions on the dress, movement and social intercourse of males and females that Islam insists on the segregation of sexes to the utmost extent compatible with individual and collective self-preservation. Its pattern of society is one in which men and women do not intermingle too freely. For each sex a certain sphere of life has been allotted within which it should concentrate its energies, leaving other fields for the opposite sex. If intermixture becomes necessary at any time, even then it is necessary to avoid too much freedom and laxity and observe the minimum requirements of decorum and sexual purity.
Now, the question is whether this Islamic pattern of sex life is compatible with industrial efficiency and military preparedness, two factors on which in the modern world depends the collective self-preservation of a community. We shall discuss each of these factors separately.
In. regard to industrial efficiency, it should be borne in mind that all efficiency, interest and dynamic energy in men and women depend to a very great extent on a healthy and happy private and family life. We have already discussed the question whether it is possible to dispense with the institution of the family and shown that, on the testimony of Western thinkers and sex psychologists themselves, it is very difficult to envisage a time when the family will disappear as an organised unit of collective life. If the family is a permanent feature of human civilised life and cannot be satis­factorily replaced by alternative institutions, it is self-evident that its stability and betterment should have the first claim on a nation's attention. If the family becomes disorganised and is not able to throw out healthy and happy individuals, not only will industrial efficiency disappear, all other spheres of human activity will suffer a set-back on account of ill-equipped, unhealthy, irresponsible and unhappy individuals who come to these fields. A pattern of collec­tive life which weakens and disorganises the family, in the interest of increased material and industrial productivity, is certain to suffer on the whole and, keeping all other factors in mind, more than others from social and economic maladjustments, because it under­mines the very foundation on which the individual's health and efficiency depend. Unhappy, ill-adjusted and uprooted individuals lacking the drive, initiative and moral idealism, which only a healthy and happy family life can create, will hardly be productive in the full sense of the word, materiality or spiritually, in any field of life they enter. Before we form any opinion as to the desirability of bringing women in the industrial field as wholetime workers, let us consult the experience of industrialised countries. It would seem that the entry of the female sex in the industrial field has had positively harmful results on the family organisation of Western countries. Dr. Sallivan observes in his book Alcoholism:
The employment of women in the ordinary industrial occupa­tions not only involves a disorganization of their domestic duties, if they are married, but it also interferes with the acquisition of housewifely knowledge during girlhood. The result is that appal­ling ignorance of everything connected with cookery, with clean­liness, with the management of the children, which makes the average wife and mother in the lower working classes in this country one of the most helpless and thriftless of beings, and which, therefore, impels the workman whose comfort depends on her, not only to spend bis free time in the public house, but also tends to make him take to alcohol as a necessary condiment with his tasteless and indigestible diet.
Both directly and indirectly, therefore, the employments that withdraw women from domestic pursuits are likely to increase alcoholism, and, it may be added, to increase its greatest potency for evil. . .namely, its influence on the health of the stock.
Again, Arnold Toynbee, the renowned British historian, says in an article published in March 1949 issue of World Review:
Certainly our recent efforts to solve our problems in strictly materialist terms have failed and made caricatures of all our
brave plans. 'We have made enormous strides,' we say, 'hi the development of labour-saving machinery,' and so we have. But one of the odd results of this progress is that women today are overworked as never before. Wives in America can no longer get household help or afford to devote themselves exclusively to the home. As a result the woman of today does two jobs: one as wife and mother in the home, one as employee in the office or factory.
During the war in England, this double working of women . was almost universal. And such a trend is not a hopeful one. In history the ages of disintegration were unusually the ages in which women had left the home. In fifth-century Greece, the high point of classical history, women stayed in the home. But after Alexander's time when the city states were breaking up, there was a feminist movement like our own.
Commenting on the female craze to copy and imitate men and prove themselves equal to their power and capacity, Oswald Schwarz remarks in his Psychology of Sex:
If women try to compete with men they try the impossible, impossible because it is against their intrinsic nature and against the trend of history. The best they can achieve is equality in action in such superficial strata as, for instance, the economic sphere.
Sensible Western thinkers have never approved of the existing sex and social patterns in Western countries. Their ideas and opi­nions are much more akin to the pattern of life advocated by Islam. For an axample, we quote Anthony M. Ludovici who writes in his famous book, Women, A Vindication:
It seems eminently desirable to emphasize more than we have emphasized in the past the ideal of matrimony for every woman up to a certain age, and bring home to parents that marriage is what they must train them for. . . . Anything else that she may do must always be second best to this; and those who, by mis­representation and appeals to vanity, persuade her while she is quite young that there are callings better than, or at least as good as, motherhood for her, are enemies not only of women but also of the species.
The same book also contains the following passage:
Immersed as woman obviously is up to her shoulders in the business of life and its multiplication, let it be said openly and unequivocally that all those who teach her that any other busi­ness is her business, although who, in the face of the dilemma of modern problems, confuse her with tales about a true woman­hood away from life and its multiplication; all those, in short, who beguile her with promises of happiness, contentedness or even comfort, without her primary adaptation to man and the child, are liars both unscrupulous and criminal.
It is clear from the above quotations that the promiscuous her­ding together of men and women in factories, besides disorganising family life, has been productive of other evils such as alcoholism, sexual laxity, etc., which, in their combination, have more than nullified the benefits arising from increased industrial productivity. AH this should not be taken, however, to mean that Islam desires women to be wholly confined to domestic life. There is no such restriction in Islam on the activities of women. They are free to do any work that benefits themselves or their society either materially or spiritually, provided, first, they do not neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers, and, secondly, observe the rules of , decency explained above. In general this means that part-time acti­vities, other than domestic ones, are most suitable for women, if they can spare time and if such activities do not lead to too much intermingling with men. Co-operative family concerns in which a number of women belonging to different families or to one large family take part are ideally suited for mothers and wives. If it be­comes necessary to engage male workers in such undertakings for supervision, teaching or training, men of advanced age can be selec­ted for the purpose. Part-time work in factories can also be per-fornicd by women if there is a separate section exclusively meant for them. Women whose maternal or domestic functions are over and who can do wholctimc work in other fields arc not debarred from outside activities. Such is the pattern of Islamic social life and it js one which, without breaking up or disorganising family and home'; life, gives full scope to the abilities and energies of the female sex.
Let us deal now with the question of military preparedness and Islam's attitude in respect of the participation of women in military service. Individual and national self-preservation in time of crisis and emergency alters the normal course of life and individuals as well as communities are forced to deviate from their principles of life when the threat to their existence becomes too serious. In con­sequence, they have to do things which they would never like to do in the normal course of their existence, ft is the sign of a virile individuality and virile civilisation that even if it has to deviate under the pressure of extreme emergency from the standards of conduct that it holds dear, it does so most unwillingly and only in the mea­sures required by the necessities of the situation—neither more nor less; and when the threat to its existence has passed, it hastens to revert to its original pattern of conduct. Islam, being a practica religion and claiming to be the natural way of life, recognises tha situations may arise where things otherwise unlawful may have to b< legalised as a temporary measure, but it takes care to ensure tha its followers do not develop a liking and relish for illegality undei flimsy pretexts. Therefore, while it allows temporary relaxation ol normally accepted standards, it enjoins on Muslims not to regarc them as more than passing concessions and to make use of then except to the extent made absolutely necessary by the requirement: of the situation. Examples of this attitude are found in the Islamii commands with regard to wine and exposure of the private part of a Muslim male or female. Wine has been absolutely prohibitei by Islam, but if a person on the point of death can be saved b; being made to drink wine, its use is legally justified. Similarly, Islan has given strict injunctions to its followers not to expose thei private parts under any circumstances. As explained above, th Prophet even enjoined on married couples not to become comp Ictely naked during sexual intercourse. But if a man or woman i threatened with extreme danger of ill-health or one's life is in peri and the threat to life or health cannot be averted except by expo sing one's private parts before a doctor for medical treatment such an act becomes fully legitimate. Islam has adopted tht sam< attitude with regard to the intermingling of the sexes in times 01 extreme national emergency or during an actual war. During such times, it relaxes all the restrictions as and when required and to the extent made necessary by the situation. When the emergency has passed, the normal restrictions are again made operative. Bat even during a war or emergency, Islam requires the Muslim males and females to follow as far as possible the rules of decency and avoid unnecessary intermingling. According to the Islamic attitude of life, the Muslim individuals, male and female, and the Muslim brotherhood exist not for mere self-preservation and self-enjoy­ment. The primary object of human existence in general and of the Muslim community in particular is to live and act for the preser­vation and growth of moral values and to uphold the spiritual ideals of social fairplay, justice, decency, cleanliness in thought and action.
You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men. You enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in'Allah'Oil 109).
Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil (xxii. 41).
And thus We have made you a nation of the middle path that you may be bearers of witness to mankind and (that) the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you (ii. 142).
Sexual purity and chastity are among the fundamental social values upheld by Islam. In themselves they may appear to be of secondary importance, but they affect one's social conduct, one's ideas of justice, honesty and fairplay and in fact one's whole gamut of action in a thousand and one ways. They are, therefore, regar­ded by Islam as occupying a position of primary importance in its total scheme of values. How is it possible then for a community which claims to be the guardian of morality and spirituality to sacrifice them for the sake of safeguarding and ensuring a bare carnal existence. Suppose the Muslims ensure their self-preservation at the cost of these or other moral values, would it be a soul-satis­fying existence? As Jesus Christ, one of the greatest Prophets of God, remarked: 'What docs it avail if a man gains the whole world but loses his own soul?'
In view of these Tacts, Islam has enjoined, while permitting tem­porary relaxations, that great care should be taken during an emer­gency to sec that these relaxations are neither misused nor used in a way which is unnecessary for individual and national self-preser-
vation. As far as possible, intermingling of the sexes should be avoided even in times of war and resorted to only to the minimum extent compatible with the needs of collective self-preservation. Keeping in view these safeguards and precautions, let us explain the freedoms granted to women during a national emergency.
During the early period of Islam when the Muslims were engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the forces of disbelief, women used freely to take part in helping the warriors of Islam. Short of actual fighting which was unnecessary for Muslim women, because the women on the other side too did not join battle, they did everything such as nursing, carrying food and water and looking after other needs of the army. Bukhari quotes a tradition stating that when the Prophet received wounds during the battle of Uhud, his daughter, Fatimah, dressed up his wounds and carried water to him. It is clear that, under these conditions, she could not have observed any normal restrictions on the dress and movement of the female sex. Similarly in the chapter on Jehad and Siyar, Bukhari states on the authority of Anas b. Malik, that during the battle of Uhud when the nonbelievers inflicted a crushing defeat on Muslims, 'Ayeshah, the wife of the Prophet, and Umm Salim, an­other Muslim lady, raised up their gowns to the knees and -carried water to. the wounded. This shows that the normal restrictions on the dress of the females can be abandoned during a war to the extent made necessary by the exigencies of the situation. Again,, a tradition found in the Muslim's collection states: Umm 'Atiyyah says:- 'I took part in seven battles with the Prophet of God, and I used to cook food for the warriors, supply them with medi­cines and dress up their wounds. Anas also reports that the Prophet usually took with him in war Umm Salim and other women of the Ansar and these women administered medicines to the wounded and kept them supplied with drinking water. That the Prophet saw nothing objectionable and even approved of women fighting for Islam is evident from another tradition also which says that the Prophet used to visit the wife of 'Ibadah b. Samit who was related to him. One day the Prophet slept in her house and on walking up began to laugh. The wife of 'Ibadah asked him as to why he laughed. The Prophet said that he saw in a dream a number of men and women travelling in a ship and heading for a battle with the non-believers. The wife of 'Ibadah requested him to pray that she be one of those warriors. Accordingly, the Prophet prayed for her. During the reign of Mu'awiyah, the wife of 'Ibadah actually voyaged to the battlefield, but when she landed on the coast she fell down from her horse and died.
All these reports establish the fact that women are permitted to take part in war with men. There is nothing to prevent women from participating in actual fighting if this becomes necessary. During the Prophet's time the Muslim women did not do actual fighting because it was nor necessary, as the other side also did not employ women to fight its battles. But the Muslims may be faced now-a-days with enemies who recruit women in regular fighting service. Should this happen, Muslim women can also do actual fighting as Islam does not prohibit it.
Only one question remains to be discussed. Modern war requires intensive training both for actual military service and for auxiliary services. How can Muslim women be trained in the art of war and nursing, etc., if intermingling of the sexes is to be avoided? The obvious solution is to train initially a batch of women advanced in age for military and auxiliary services with the help of male experts. When a sufficient number of women have acquired skill in the different fields of military or medical services, they can train a large number of women without the help of men. Thus interming­ling of the sexes can either be avoided or reduced to the minimum extent possible.

Purdah
The purdah system among the Muslims has been the subject of fierce controversies between the old, conservative school of thought and the new, enlightened sections of Muslims brought up under the influence of Western education and culture. It has also come in for much abuse and mudslinging by the non-Muslim critics, writers and thinkers. Old-fashioned people, whose influence is still great, defend the existing purdah system as entirely in accordance with the teachings of Islam, They maintain that this system is not a post-Islamic invention and a departure from the practices and customs that held sway during the period of the Prophet. On the other hand, the so-called advanced sections of the Muslims, who have taken every Western mode of thought and practice's an infallible truth, argue very much as if life and society in early Islam were patterned on that which is exhibited in Hollywood films and obtains in the fashionable circles of London and New York. The truth, as in many other cases, lies somewhere in' the midway.
There is no doubt that the purdah system as it exists among middle-class Muslims has nothing Islamic about it. It is purely a non-religious social custom. Life in Islamic Arabia was set in a different pattern and the rigorous confinement of women within the four walls of their homes was a phenomenon not to be met with anywhere. This is not, however, to justify the standpoint of those Muslims who are anxious to prove that the wives and female rela­tions of the Prophet and his companions enjoyed the same un­restricted freedom as the ordinary women in the Western countries, or freely intermingled with men without occasion and necessity. This had never been the case. Women in early Islam were not totally confined to their homes. They came out on occasions under the stress of economic, social and religious necessity, but when they did come out they dressed and moved in a particular way which did not make them objects of attraction and they remained very much apart from the society of men. Unnecessary intermixture of the sexes was never approved of by Islam and runs counter to the whole spirit of its teachings.
In discussing the question of purdah, these two aspects should
be sharply distinguished, otherwise there will be much confusion
of thought. The question whether women are free to go^ out of
their homes and, if so, whether it is necessary to hide their faces
completely under their veils, is different from the question whether
they are permitted to mix freely with men on all occasions—in
private gatherings, social and State functions and political assem-
, blies. On the first issue we are in agreement with the stand taken
i by our modernists; on the second issue, we unreservedly repudiate
their conclusions. Let us analyse our arguments.
The defenders of the existing purdah system which means, in effect, close and complete confinement of women within their homes, build their case on the following verses of the Holy Qur'an:
And stay in your homes and do not go about displaying your­selves like the display of the days of Ignorance (xxxiii. 33).
O Prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down over them their jilbab (over-garment); this will be more proper that they may be known, and thus they will not be molested (xxxiii. 53).
Say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; surely Allah is aware of what they do.
And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and not display their orna­ments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or.. .(xxiv. 30-31).
From the first verse, the defenders of the purdah system argue that Islam means to keep women closely and completely confined
to their homes. This is a wrong interpretation. When the Qur'an says that women should stay in their homes and make no display of their charms, it is referring to the life in pre-Islamic Arabia, when women, despite the heavy social and legal disabilities from which they suffered, freely and frequently moved about and indulg­ed in amorous talks with strangers or mixed with them on objec­tionably intimate terms. This is the kind of life which Islam wanted to replace by a life of decency and responsibility. So the Qur'an asked women to take more interest in the affairs of their homes and not wander about like butterflies to charm and attract members of the male sex. The duty of remaining at home and the injunction prohibiting women from making a display of their charms are found together not without reason. The close proximity of these two items shows that women who are fond of displaying their beauty to outsiders cannot take the same interest in home affairs and family matters as others. If a woman, therefore, feels that her primary interest lies at home, she will naturally stay there and come out only in the face of a pressing necessity. This is all that the Qur'an means, and we are further supported in this interpreta­tion by the next two verses of the Holy Qur'an which lay down some precautionary restrictions for women going out of their homes. If the Qur'an intended totally to prohibit the movement of women outside their homes, where was the necessity of laying down these restrictions on dress and movement? Moreover, as we have already explained in the previous chapter, the Holy Prophet expressly stated that women are permitted to go out for satisfying their legitimate wants when his companion, 'Umar, objected to Sauda's coming out of her house.
Next comes the question whether women are required on coming out to hide their faces by means of a veil or naqab. The second verse quoted above directs women to put on a. jilbab (over-garment) when they go outside their homes, and in the third verse it is stated that women should not exhibit any part of their body or orna­ment except 'what appears thereof. Differences of opinion have arisen as to what the Qur'an exactly means by jilbab and what is the exact significance of 'what appears thereof.
According to Alusi, the author of Ruh al-Ma'am, jilbab means an over-garment which a woman puts on over her ordinary clothes. Ibn 'Abbas, says Alusi, interpreted jilbab to mean a long and loose gown which covered a woman's body from her neck to feet. The author of Path al-Bayan, a famous commentary of the Holy Qur'an, states that 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, said: 'May God have mercy on the women of Ansar! When the Quranic verse relating to the wearing of jilbab was revealed to the Prophet, they tore off their big sheets of cloth and covered themselves with their torn parts (because, in those days, women did not use many clothes) and in this state offered their prayers behind the Prophet as silently as if crows were seated on their heads.' These statements and interpretations read with that part of the Quranic verse which says that women should let down over them their jilbabs, because 'this will be more proper that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble,' give us the social and historical context to which the Quranic directions referred. It is clear from all this that: (a) the social behaviour of pre-Islamic Arabia was such that women moving out of their homes were interfered with and teased; (b) women in pre-Islamic Arabia did not properly dress themselves and used very few clothes: moreover, they were fond of displaying their bodily charms, as testified by one of the above-quoted Quranic verses; (c) these conditions lasted until Islam was completely successful; (d) Islam enjoined on women to put on a long over­garment, first, to serve as warning to jthe people that new standards of decency had come into force and Muslim women coming out of their homes observed these • standards and should, therefore, be marked off from other women; secondly, to prevent the display of bodily features and charms. Now if the social morality of any country has advanced to the stage where women coming outside their homes are not interfered with or teased, the first ground on which women were ordered to wear a long over­garment disappears. But the second ground on which this injunc­tion is based, namely, the need of preventing women from display­ing and exhibiting their bodily charms, is not affected by any historical changes or development or social morality. As such there is no reason why this direction should not be observed by Muslim women even in advanced countries. Ordinary dress, even if it covers all parts of the body, can be such as to expose and bring into prominence the physical charms of women. It is, there­fore, still necessary to put on a long over-garment over ordinary clothes.
But this does not solve the question whether women coming out of their homes are permitted to uncover their hands, feet and
faces, and whether a veil or naqab is necessary. It depends on the interpretation of the words 'except what appears thereof. Let us see how the Prophet, his companions and the later authorities interpreted this phrase. Abu Dawud has related a tradition trans­mitted by 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, wherein she says: Asma bint Abu Bakr came to the Prophet wearing thin clothes. The Prophet turned his face away and said: 'When a woman reaches puberty, it is not proper that any portion of her body should be seen by a man except these parts,' and he pointed towards his face and hands. 'Ayeshah also related that once her niece, Muzinah, came to her. On seeing her, the Prophet turned away his face. 'Ayeshah said that Muzinah was her niece and still a girl. The Prophet replied to her saying that when a girl comes of age, it is unlawful for her to display any part of her body except her face and two hands. Among the companions of the Prophet, according to Ibn Kathir, Sa'id and Ibn Mas'ud are of the opinion that 'what appears thereof means clothes which a woman might be wearing. Ibn 'Abbas and Qatadah are of the opinion that it means eye-paint, signets and the hand-paint. Ibn 'Umar says 'what appears thereof means face, hands and signet, because he is of the opinion that women are forced to uncover these parts. If they do not uncover their hands, they cannot buy or sell; if they do not expose their faces, they cannot act as witnesses, nor seek the hand of any man in marriage; if they do not uncover their feet, they can hardly go about for their necessities., Among the later authorities, 'Ata', Auza'i, Ibrahim Nakha'i, 'Ikramah and Dahhak agree that 'what appears thereof has reference to hands, feet and face. Among the famous jurists of Islam, Imam Malik' says that the entire body of a woman is included in satr (i.e. parts which should be kept fully covered), except the hands and face. Imam Shafi'i also makes an exception in favour of the face and hands. Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal says that the entire body of a woman should be kept fully covered except the face. Imam Abu Hanifah, the most widely accepted authority on Muslim jurisprudence, says that it is not lawful for a stranger to see any part of a woman's body, but he can see her face and hands. According to Imam Abu Yusuf, in addition to the face and the hands, the wrists of a woman may also be lawfully
seen.
In his famous work, al-Multalla, Ibn Hazm also expresses the same opinion. He says that the Quranic words 'they shall not dis- play their ornaments except what appears thereof expressly permit the uncovering of the face and the hands. Ibn Hazm further refers to an incident reported by Ibn 'Abbas who said that during the Farewell Pilgrimage of the Prophet a woman belonging to the tribe of Khasam carne^ to see the Prophet. Ibn 'Abbas's brother, Fadl, was riding behind the Prophet on the same camel. The woman said to the Prophet: 'My father cannot perform the pilgrimage, which is a religious obligation, on account of old age. Is it per­missible that I may perform the Hajj on his behalf?' The Prophet said, 'Yes.' The woman was very handsome and pretty. Fadl began to look at her. Thereupon the Prophet turned his face away. Ibn Hazm argues that if it were prohibited for a woman to uncover her face outside her home, how is it possible that the Prophet should have tolerated her to appear uncovered in public? Moreover, how could Ibn 'Abbas know whether she was ugly or pretty? Further, Fadl could not have looked at her. On these grounds Ibn Hazm declares that the uncovering of the face and hands in public is lawful for a woman.
From the opinions quoted above, it is clear that the vast majo­rity of Muslim scholars, jurists and other religious authorities agree on this point: that a veil which totally covers the face of a woman is not necessary and that women have been permitted by Islam to come out with faces and hands uncovered in case of genuine need. But barring the face, the hands and the feet, all other parts, includ­ing the neck, should be completely covered and a long over-garment put on which leaves no part of the body exposed. Any kind of dress which, instead of hiding the bodily charms and features of women, brings them into greater prominence is definitely prohibit­ed by Islam.
The actual practice in the days of the Prophet, as evidenced by history and tradition, confirms the view that Muslim women came out of their homes frequently for satisfying their economic, intellec­tual and religious needs without putting on a veil but always dress­ed in full and wearing a loose over-garment which completely hid their bodily features and charms. Thus 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, reports that 'many believing women used to attend the prayers conducted by the Prophet wrapping themselves up in their long sheets. They then returned to their homes while it was still dark and nobody recognised them on account of darkness'. -This report makes it clear that it was darkness and not the veil or any other
face-covering which prevented people from recognising them. An­other tradition states: 'Subiyyah Aslamiyyah was married to Sa'd b. Khaulah and he was one of those who were present at the battle of Badr. He died during the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage, leaving her pregnant. Sometime after the death of her husband, she delivered a child. When she became clean, she adorned herself to seek remarriage. Abu Sanabil Ba'kak of the family of 'Abd al-Dar passed by her and said to her: "Perhaps you intend to remarry as I see you fully adorned. By God, you cannot marry unless four months elapse on the death of your husband." Subiyah says, "On hearing this, I gathered upon me my clothes in the evening and came to the Prophet to ask him about this matter." The Prophet said that after childbirth, she could lawfully contract another mar­riage and allowed her to remarry.'
This incident, it is to be noted, happened after the last pilgrimage of the Prophet when the restrictions on the movement of women outside their homes had been enforced, and not in the earlier period, when Muslim women still enjoyed the untrammelled free-. dom of the days of Ignorance. It is clear that Subiyyah was not putting on a veil and her fice was uncovered as otherwise she could not have been recognised. It is also clear that this uncovering of the face was not occasioned by her desire to remarry but it must have been her normal practice, as otherwise Abu Sanabil could not have identified her. It is also clear that Subiyyah did not go to the Prophet without putting on her full dress as she says, 'I gathered upon me my clothes,' which points to the use of many clothes including an over-garment. All this shows that women during the period of early Islam were not as closely confined to their homes as those of the Muslim middle classes now-a-days and that they enjoyed a fair amount of freedom of movement. But it is also dear from this that they observed all the restrictions on dress and movement enjoined by Islam. The picture which thus emerges is quite different from the traditional purdah observed by Muslim women and also from the untrammelled freedom of movement and dress enjoyed by women in Western countries. This is the point which our modernists forget when advocating the abolition of purdah.
That Islam has definitely prohibited the unnecessary intermingl­ing of men "arid women and their joint participation in social and State functions, is evident from the restrictions on the "movement, dress and looks of men and women. Islam enjoins on both men and women to cast down their looks in the presence of each other. How is it possible for men and women to meet freely in dinners, tea-parties, social and State functions with looks cast down? There is not a single instance in the history of early Islam of men and women being allowed to meet each other freely in any social, politi­cal or religious gathering. Even in the mosques women had their separate rows at the time of prayers. They usually formed a sepa­rate group. The Prophet had enforced a rule that no man should stand shoulder to shoulder with a woman in the mosque, not even her husband or father. Bukhari relates a tradition on the authority of 'Ata' that during the days of the Prophet women performed their circumambulations round the Ka'bah but they were not allowed to mix with men. If this kind of segregation was enforced during religious worship and prayers, etc., which form the most essential duties of Muslim men and women, it is unthinkable that it was allowed to remain unobserved in other matters. Another example of this segregation of the sexes is found in the following tradition quoted by Abu Dawud in the chapter 'On the passage of women through streets'.
Hamzah b. Abu Usaid Ansari transmits through his father that the Prophet was coming out of the mosque when he found that men and women had got mixed. He asked women to go behind and said: It is not proper for you to walk in the middle of the street. You should walk on the edge of the street. After this command, women walked so near the walls of the houses that their long sheets (over-garments) sometimes got stuck into the walls.
We haye already discussed the point whether such segregation of the sexes would not exclude women from many public, social and industrial activities and we have shown that, barring emergencies, arrangements can be made in normal times for women to partici­pate in all kinds of work in such a way that they do not mix with men. But where such intermingling becomes socially necessary and no method can be devised for preventing social intermixture, the needs of society must take precedence over legal command. Gene­rally, however, men and women must work apart. If this leads to some deficiency in industrial or military strength, it must be put up for the sake of higher social values. In life one has sometimes to the spread of sexual lavity with all its attendant onses of jealous^, physical disease and weal.ess etc things which ultimately reduce and sometimes vitally impair the aU-round encyTf a nation and its capacity to put forth its most devoted undivided efforts during a great social or political crisis.
Polygamy
Much harsh and unthinking criticism has been levelled against Islam for having permitted polygamy. It is not realised that the Islamic permission for polygamy was and remains conditional. It arose out of the circumstance that Islam found itself engaged in an almost unending series of wars with its deadly foes. This naturally led to the progressive reduction of the male population. The pro­blem of surplus women left in such circumstances could not be solved except by permitting men to marry more than one wife in order to provide for helpless women and save them from falling into the evil of prostitution. Moreover, in Arabia before the advent of Islam, polygamy was unlimited. A man could marry as many women as he liked, there being no restriction as to the number of marriages he could contract. Islam could not have abolished such a deep-rooted custom with its far-reaching economic effects at a sudden stroke. Therefore, as in the case of slavery, it proceeded by gradual steps. First, it limited to four the number of wives a man could have. Then it laid down that a second or third marriage could not be resorted to unless the husband felt that he could do justice to all his wives in the matter of economic sustenance and general treatment.
Christian writers who have condemned Islam on the score that it allowed polygamy forget that their own religion has nowhere ex­pressly prohibited the institution of polygamy. Although the New Testament upholds the ideal of monogamy, it does not prohibit polygamy except in the case of a bishop or a deacon. It has been
argued that it was not necessary for the first Christian teachers to condemn polygamy because it was rarely practised by the people amidst whom it was preached. But this is certainly not true of the Jews who permitted as well as practised polygamy at the beginning of the Christian era. Some of the Fathers accused Jewish Rabbis of polygamy, but no Council of the Church in the early centuries opposed polygamy, and no obstacle was put in the way of its practice by kings in the countries where it occurred. Polygamy was sometimes practised by Christian kings without the disapproval of the Church. Charlemagne had two wives and many concubines, and one of his laws seems to imply that the custom was not unknown even among the priests.
Even in the modem West there is a considerable number of thinkers and sociologists who recognise that polygamy is not an unmitigated evil and that in certain circumstances it may become desirable, even necessary. In England proposals were made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to legalise polygamy as a means of restraining infanticide, adultery, prostitution and the evils of sexual relations outside marriage. According to Havelock Ellis, James Hinton declared that although monogamy be a good, nay even the only good, order, if of free choice, a law for it is another thing. He says: 'We have arrived at it as a legal and uni­versal form to carry it out in its entirety and so actually called into being more licentiousness than would be possible under an open polygamy. A forced monogamy is responsible for many of the evils of prostitution, and leads to hatred and quarrels, to intense jeal­ousy in women, and to an insistence on the mere physical relation­ship which turns spontaneity and purity into corruption. The woman's natural jealousy, is not at a man's loving another, but at his forsaking her.' Westermarck quoted a number of writers in his, book, The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization, who advo­cate the legislation of polygamy on different grounds. He says:
Dr. Cope sees no objection to voluntary polygamy or polyandry being permitted, if agreed to by all the parties. Under ordinary circumstances, he says, very few persons would be willing to make such a contract, but there are some cases of hardship which such permission would remedy. Such, for instance, would be the case where the man or woman had become the victim of a chronic disease, or, where either party should be childless, and in other contingencies that can be imagined. For the most part, it adds, the best way to deal with polygamy is to let it alone. So also, according to Mr. Southern, the preference that most people give to monogamy is no reason why the state should enforce it. So far as other forms of marriage can be practised by mutual consent, and without detrimentally affecting children, the state hasn't the ghost of a right to veto them. Dr. Norman Haire, who maintains that legalised polygamy would offer many advan­tages to the majority of people, argues that if the children are supported by the state, there need be no limit to the number of legal mates. Professor Dunlop thinks it may well be that certain individuals cannot attain complete satisfaction in monogamy, but may reach a highly satisfying adaptation in polygamous marri­age, and that the system of the future will leave individuals free to form whatever types of matrimonial alliances are most advan­tageous to them. . . .In France, Dr. Le Bon has predicted that European legislation in the future will recognize polygamy. . . . A return to polygamy, the natural relationship between the sexes, would remedy many evils: prostitution, venereal diseases, abortion, the misery of illegitimate children, the misfortune of millions of unmarried women, resulting from the disproportion between the sexes, adultery, 'and even jealousy, since the disre­garded wife would find consolation in her cognizance of not being secretly deceived by her husband. . . .A radical champion of polygamy is Professor Christian von Ehrenfels, who regards it as necessary for the preservation of the Aryan race.
After quoting the above writers, Westermarck examines the grounds on which polygamy may be justified. In this connection he says:
If polygamy were permitted in modern civilization its actual pre­valence would also be influenced by women's feeling about it. It is said that if we reckon the age of marrigc from twenty to fifty years, the disproportion between the sexes causes at least three or four women per cent to be, in normal circumstances,.compell­ed to lead a single life in consequence of our obligatory mono­gamy.
It is obvious that if what Dr. Westermarck says about the disproportion between the number of men and women of marriage­able age is true, polygamy becomes a social necessity, provided it is on a restricted scale; in order to absorb surplus women into marri­ed life there is no doubt that if polygamy is resorted to by a very large number of men, it may ultimately lead to the problem of a surplus of unmarried men, as there may be many people who will not be able to find a mate for themselves. But there is really little danger of polygamy spreading on a very large scale or assuming uncontrollable proportions. As pointed out by Havelock Ellis in his Psychology of Sex:
Since the sexes are equal in number (with, at the start, a prepon­derance of males), the natural order in a civilized society cannot work out as two wives for every male, and in the societies which recognize polygamy, it is only practised by a small wealthy class. But it is incorrect to assert that in our civilization men (rare exceptions aside) ever desire two wives, whether in the same home or in separate homes; there are various considerations of different orders which make such an arrangement undesirable for the majority of men; while for a woman, to carry on two families, with separate fathers, is still more impracticable; she is necessa­rily monogamic.
This conclusion is corroborated by Westermarck himself who says:
But this does not imply that if polygamy were legalized, any con­siderable number of men would indulge in it. It is a curious freak on the part of Bernard Shaw to say that as polygamy would enable the best men to monopolize all the women, a great many men would be condemned to celibacy. Apart from other reasons, economic considerations, fear of domestic troubles and the difficulty of finding a woman who would care to share her marri­ed life with a fellow-wife, would prevent men from taking advan­tage of the new right grunted them. The experience gained from peoples who permit polygamy teaches us that generally only a small minority of the men practise it. In the Mohammedan world, for instance, the large majority of men live in monogamy. In Persia, according to Colonel Macgrcgor, only two per cent have a plurality of wives. Among the Mohammedans of India, according to a report from the census of 1907, there are 1,021 wives to every 1,000 husbands, so that, even if no husbands have more than two wives, all but 21 per thousand must be monoga­mous.
Among other reasons why polygamy may be legitimately resort­ed to by men, Dr. Westermarck mentions sexual abstinence during pregnancy. Some people regard sexual intercourse during pregn­ancy as injurious to the health of woman as well as her unborn child, and there are women who feel less desire for sexual course during pregnancy greatly preferring total abstinence. 'Of 81 married women,' says Westermarck, who answered Dr. Hamilton's questions on this subject, '28 stated that pregnancy did not affect their sex desire, 25 that they experienced increased, and 32 that they experienced decreased desire during one phase or another of at least one pregnancy.'1 Dr. Westermarck, however, rejects it as a sufficient ground for a plurality of wives saying: 'But in no case does pregnancy, among ourselves, lead to general abs­tinence from conjugal intercourse, and however desirable it may be proved to b* in certain cases and certain stages of pregnancy, 1 think such abstinences ruled out as a cause of prospective poly­gamy. The same may be said of abstinence from childbirth.'/
Another ground on which polygamy may be justified, according to Dr. Westermarck, is the strong and innate polygamous instinct of man as contrasted with women wno are generally monogamous by nature. 'The man's taste for variety in sex experience,' says Westermarck, 'is re ore intense than the woman's and this has led to the often repeated statement that he is instinctively polygamous. "Man," says Dr. Robinson, "is a strongly polygamous or varietist animal. ... To a greater percentage of men a strictly monogamous life is either irksome, painfully disagreeable or an utter impossi­bility." Michels writes: "We regard it as beyond doubt that there is no man, of whatever degree of virtue, who has not, at least in imagination or in dream life, possessed more women than one. Attention has been clrawn to this fact by an unending series of writers, both of scientific treatises and of belletristic literature. . . . In the male, th-: stimuli capable of arousing sexual excitement (this term is not to be here understood in the grossly physical sense) are
1Westermarck, The Future of Marriage in Western Ci\-ili:ation, p. 182.
so extraordinarily manifold, so widely differentiated, that it is quite impossible for one single woman to possess them all...." Dr. Miesel-Hess remarks that "in the male satiety ensues as soon as he has gained the goal of his desire. He wishes to pass on in search for fresh sexual experiences, whereas the woman who has given herself up to a man clings to this person all the more firmly to him." According to Forel, woman is generally much more parti­cular than man in giving her love: while the normal man is as a rule attracted to coitus by nearly every more or less young and healthy woman, this is by no means the case in the normal woman with regard to man. She is also much more constant than man from the sexual point of view, and it is really possible for her to experience sexual desire for several men at once." George Hirth is of the same opinion. Of 324 female students at the University of Moscow, thirty-one thought it possible to love two men at the same time. Kisch says that "the young sexual conqueror is thinking of women, the sexually ripening women of the man;" and he attributes the predominantly monogamous character of woman's love to the commanding strength of its spiritual elements.'2
It is obvious that if man is by nature more strongly polygamous, the marriage law should not lose sight of this important fact and some provisions should be made for men in whom the sexual ins­tinct is more than commonly strong; otherwise illegitimate sexual relations are likely to become more frequent. A social system which does not permit polygamy under any circumstances will be cons­tantly threatened with disruptive tendencies owing to the frequency of sexual aberrations. The State may no doubt interfere by making polygamy conditional, as Islam has done, but it has no justification to stop it completely. Among other reasons for polygamy may be ~ mentioned barrenness, constant illness of the wife leading to pro­longed sexual abstinence and sexual frigidity which makes some women dislike the act of coitus. Complete prohibition of polygamy under any one of these circumstances commonly drives men to adultery.
For various reasons, some of which have been explained above, Islam did not deem it expedient to abolish the institution of poly­gamy altogether. But it restricted polygamy and insisted that full justice should be done to all the wives, and if a man was afraid
*lbid., p. J88. that he could not do justice in treatment and in the provision of economic sustenance, he should limit himself to only one wife. Thus the Qur'an has stated: 'And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two, three and four, but if you fear that you may not do justice to them, then marry only one' (iv. 3). Explaining this passage Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in his translation of the Holy Qur'an:
This passage permits polygamy under certain circumstances: it does not enjoin it nor even permit it unconditionally. It may be noted here that the explanation of this passage as generally understood is based on a report contained in the Muslim, accor­ding to which 'A yeshah understood this verse as meaning that if the guardian of orphan girls feared that by marrying them they would not be able to do justice to them, they should marry other women. This explanation, even if the report be taken to be authentic, requires the insertion into the passage of a number of words which the original does not contain, as the meaning is much more clear, and more in consonance with the context, without the addition of these words, the interpretation given below is preferable. It is admitted that this chapter was revealed to guide the Muslims under the conditions which followed the battle of Uhud, and the last portion of the last chapter deals with that battle. Now in that battle 70 men out of 700 Muslims had been slain, and this decimation had largely decreased the number of males, who, being the breadwinners, were the natural guardians and supporters of the females. The number was likely to suffer a still greater diminution in the battles which had yet to be fought, while the number of women would be increased by the addition of prisoners of war. Thus many orphans would be left in the charge of widows, who would find it difficult to procure the necessary means of support. Hence in the first verse of this chapter the Muslims are enjoined to respect the ties of relation­ship, and as they all came from a single ancestor breadth is introduced into the idea of relationship, inasmuch as they are told that they arc all in fact related to each other. In the second verse the care of orphans is particularly enjoined. In the third verse we are told that if they could not do justice to the orphans, they might marry the widows, whose children would thus become their own children, and as the number of women was now much greater than the number of men, they were permitted to marry even two or three or four women. It would thus be clear that the permission to have more than one wife was given under the peculiar circumstances of the Muslim society then existing, and the Prophet's action in marrying widows, as well as the example of many of his companions, corroborates this statement. Marriage with orphan girls is also sanctioned in this passage, for there were the same difficulties in the case of orphan girls as in the case of widows, and the words are general.
It is clear from the above explanation that the permission given by the Qur'an for polygamy arose out of particular circumstances. Since these circumstances are likely to recur now and then in the life of the Muslim community and since there will always be indi­vidual cases where polygamy may become necessary in order to avoid more serious moral and social evils, it is not right to prohibit polygamy by legislation. But since the Qur'an has made it condi­tional on a just and equal treatment of the wives, it is open to the State to prescribe conditions under which polygamy will be allow­able. For example, it may be laid down that polygamy will be allowed only if a person shows sufficient cause for it and satisfies the authorities that he will be able to bear the additional economic burden and will not thereby injure his health.
Co-education
It is not difficult to understand the attitude of Islam with regard to co-education, if one realises that its conception of sex equality is founded on a differentiation of functions as between men and women. Islam insists on married life both for men and women. It regards the home and domestic life as the natural and most impor­tant sphere of a woman's activity. It dislikes the free intermingling of men and women except under the strain of a serious emergency. It is, therefore, obvious that co-education is opposed to the whole tenor of Islamic teachings, because the system rests on presuppo­sitions and postulates which are quite different. Co-education is based on the assumption that there are no psychological and tempe­ramental differences of any great consequence between man and woman, that after completing their education they have to pursue like careers and enter identical spheres of activity and that no sexual aberrations are likely to occur from the herding together of boys and girls in the same institution, or if they do occur, their ^onsequences for the stability of the family, the happiness of married life and the general character-formation of men and women are not serious enough to warrant social condemnation. All these assumptions are very questionable and since the modern edu­cation of girls has been mostly based on them, the results have been none too happy, as the following paragraphs will show.
In the earlier phase of the movement for women's emancipation in England, the British feminists did not allow their aspirations to run amuck. They had a practicable and sane ideal of women's free
dom which did not run counter to the fundamental traits of femi­nine nature. As early as 1864, Miss Emil Davies wrote in the Year Book of Education: 'We are not encumbered by theories about equality and inequality of mental powers in the sexes. All we claim is that the intelligence of women, be it great or small, shall have full and free development. . . the object being the awakening and strengthening and adorning of the human spirit.' Totally different have been the ideas of later feminists whose educational and other ideals have fallen in the same line with men. Under the assumption that the female brain was capable of intellectual pursuits equal to the male, the modern educational system for girls is a copy of the educational system for boys. The results of this policy have been commented upon at the report of the committee appointed- in England in 1923 to consider the differentiation of curricula bpt-ween the sexes in secondary schools. The 'authors of the report remark: 'Basing their policy on the belief that girls could equal boys at least in intellectual matters if favourable conditions were afforded, the leaders of the (women's) movement implicitly assumed that what had been done for and by boys was in general suitable for both sexes.' A complete lack of feminine ideals and a thorough imitation of masculine ideals have been the most outstanding features of the educational system for girls.
To a considerable extent this defect in the education of girls is the outcome of co-education. When boys and girls are made to learn and receive their education under the same teachers and in the same schools, it is naturally difficult to give sufficient conside­ration to their psychological, emotional and temperamental differ­ences and yet these differences are deep, abiding and all-pervading. Let us examine them one by one.
In his book entitled The Psychology of Education, Professor Wilton points out that while man lives by reason, woman's outlook is moulded and determined by feeling. 'She approximates the emo­tional temperament even when she does not show it in all its fulness. Intuition is a special quality of woman; and therefore she does not care for abstract thought. It is not that she docs not generalise, but that she generalises without preparatory analysis.' He cites the example of so eminent a woman as Hume de Sevique who acknow­ledged that 'abstract reasoning was repugnant to her.' Man, there­fore, he points out, analyses and applies principles deductively, bu a woman takes the special case and its value for feeling. The diffcrences in the mental outlook of the sexes become, according to the observations of this author, clear from early life. A little girl of four is essentially a little girl; and a little boy, a little boy. The girl, says he, is precocious in speech, is less often troubled with stam­mering. Her play has not the force and expansion of movement which characterises the boy's: it is comparatively quieter and assu­mes a definite meaning.
Wilton sees intellectual distinctions also. Intellectual distinctions colour the learning of the two sexes as soon as the studies provide an opportunity for their respective intellectual qualities. Thus girls do well in all that demands neither originality of thought nor abs­traction. They, therefore, keep pace with the boys, or even surpass them, in the earliest school studies most of which are concerned with concrete wholes. They learn by heart with ease, take delight in neatness and in the embellishment of their written exercises, they work out with accuracy all detailed processes with the general form of which they are familiar or which they can imitate from example. They appreciate beauty of feeling and of form; and that is why study of literature has a special appeal to them, and they can show here more progress at an earlier age than what boys could do.
These mental and intellectual differences, says Wilton, are sadly ignored by the advocates and promoters of equal education to the sexes. He is, therefore, opposed to co-education. Boys and girls, he says, may be taught together in the same subjects only in the earliest age, say, up to ten years of age, because in these years 'the matter put before them gives little scope for their characteristically different modes of apprehension'. But the intecllectual differences come into prominence with advance in age. Soon boys and girls begin to retard each other's progress, the girls being held back for slower boys in some subjects and, in their turn, impeding the ad­vance of the boys in other subjects. So, different schools for the sexes with different curricula would seem to give the best intellec­tual results. And this, he says, 'is very marked out by my own somewhat extended observations'.
One point, however, Wilton makes clear. It is that it must never be supposed that woman is an imperfectly developed man. That woman differs from man in intellect does not mean that she is in any way intellectually inferior to him. To deduce intellectual infe­riority from woman's ineptitude for abstract thought is to apply a false standard to reach a wrong conclusion. 'Neither is inferior tothe other. Each is essential to life; and in this difference of attitude, as in all that follows from it, man and w,oman are complementary. There is no question of superiority or inferiority: and any course of action based on the assumption that woman should try to become intellectually like man rests on a very insecure psychological foun­dation.'
Another ground on which Wilton proposes a different type of education for women is their functional difference from men. The functions of men and women, he says, are essentially distinct. Evolution does not mean the identification of sex qualities, but their more perfect mutual adaptation. 'Equality in value of comp­lementary functions, not the obscuring of differences already esta­blished, is what the whole course of man's evolution leads us to expect.' In his book, What Do We Mean by Education, he sadly deprecates the tendency of the course of women's education which seeks to prepare them for various forms of professional and com­mercial life which, he points out, involves strenuous intellectual application during the years of adolescence and thus becomes trying on their nerves. In his opinion the present education on the same lines as that of males disturbs the nervous equilibrium of girls and thus injures their health. This breakdown of health may be­come serious in the rough and tumble of competitive examinations, and still more so when the competition is with boys.
In his book, The Mixed School, Howard comments on the psy­chology of women. Howard does not admit much intellectual difference between the sexes, but he lays special emphasis on tem­peramental difference. He says that boys are less emotional and more practical. The girls are more subjective in their outlook while the boys are more objective. Similarly, the girls are distinguished by greater passivity so that they are inclined to rely more on autho­rity than on reason and argument. The girls have also a certain power of rapid intuition. They jump to conclusions all too easily and reason back from them to test their accuracy. Howard, there­fore, advocates a different system of education for girls and boys. He bases his conclusion on the fact that girls are liable to fatigue more readily after puberty when the amount of haemoglobin in the blood becomes lessened. This fact, he says, is of far more importance than is generally believed. For this, he cites Dr. Adams who has summarised his observations as follows. Girls in general are (1) not so strong physically as boys; (2) highly strung and liable to nervous strain which possibly is associated with the fact that physiologically they are liable to heavier drains upon the circulating calcium of the blood, and (3) with their thinner blood with lowered haemoglobin content after puberty, they are nearer to the threshold of anaemia.
This consideration of her physiological aptitude, in the opioion of Howard, must weigh when laying down a particular system of education for girls. 'The sex-changes during adolescence are followed in the girl by recurring periods of strain when general efficiency may temporarily be impaired.' He, therefore, fears a risk of overstraining the girls through unsympathetic treatment at this period. Moreover, there is a definite risk which, in his opinion, may fail to do her abilities full justice at a moment when she spe­cially needs it.
Howard, therefore, suggests that, as far as games and physical exercises are concerned, the sexes should be entirely separated as soon as their physical differences become significant. As regards intellectual education, first boys and girls may be separated for those subjects which are usually only studied by one sex; secondly, wider choice of optional subjects may be given in girls' schools; and, thirdly, overstrain on the part of the girl may be minimised by an easier optional subject.
Mrs. Dora Russell says in her book, Hypatia, 'Is there something wrong with his education of women and, if so, what? I think we must judge that there is. The reason lies in the sense of inferiority bred in women by so much operation, and the natural result that their chief aim, as they struggled upwards, was to prove that they could jolly well do without men. This effort is mistaken. Each sex has that to give to the common stock which alone it can give, and robs itself and community by inferior imitation. .. . Feminist ideals of education, then, had the defect that they did in a certain measure deny sex or ignore it.'
That there is such a thing as a female mind is proved beyond doubt by psychologists. And this female mind requires a suitable education for its own culture and development, irrespective of what the corresponding standard is for men. As Dr. Rabindranath Tagore pertinently remarks in an article published in The Nineteenth CeMury and After (August 1927): 'If woman's nature were really the same as that of man, it would be a superfluity, a mere tauto­logy. ... If women acquire the view that sex difference is only
physical, and that mentally and spiritually they are of the same nature as men, and if they act on this assumption (thus giving life a one-sidedly masculine form), then our civilisation would sink into utter confusion and chaos.'
The most vital defect of co-education, from the point of view of female nature and woman's special functions in society, is that it prevents the training of woman for motherhood. How can a com­mon educational institution run alike for boys and girls make adequate provision for training women in those arts and branches of knowledge which are necessary for her future life as a mother? Education for motherhood is the crying need of the world to-day. Because the vast majority of girls become mothers in after-life, every girl should be required to specialise for a definite time in those subjects which will make her a good mother. When the whole curriculum of girls is hopelessly congested with subjects on the line of boys which cost them their mental equilibrium and physical health, their essential function in life is allowed to pass off in igno­rance. Girls expected to manage somehow, without any adequate training, their function of motherhood on which in a great degree depends their own happiness and the preservation and welfare of the race. As a woman herself writes: 'The human mother gives poisonous mixture to her infant in place of Nature's food. She feeds its lungs with poisoned air in overheated, stuffy rooms, whilst its nervous and physical vitality is undermined by the noises and distractions of over-civilized life. Teach, train and direct instinct in women if you will, but supplement it with knowledge that is essential for child bearing in our social organization."1
Not only is there a thorough lack of training in maternity, but, on the contrary, the female education to-day incapacitates women for motherhood and marriage. It is because the strain of higher education is so enervating and exhausting that they cannot bear the strain of childbirth. Dr. Cyra Esdon has remarked on this point: 'Many educated women are so exhausted before marriage that after bearing one or two children they become wrecks.' Dr. Taylor writes very much in the same strain in his book, The Nature of Women. He says: 'This much we do know that probably at no other time in history has childbirth been so difficult, so unhealthily difficult, as, now, and that this has manifested itself chiefly in the last fifty years,
1Elizabeth Chesser, Women, Marriage, Motherhood, pp. 223-24. a period of increasing educational strain for girls.
Similarly, Dr. Knealy writes in Feminine and Sex Education: 'When adolescent girls are strained by athletics, by over-culture or industrial exhaustion, the vital resources are so diverted from the evolution of function as to cause incapacitation in them, partial or complete, for wifehood and for bearing of fine offspring.' Finally, the author of Whither Woman, Y.M. Rege, says:
No feminist—of however extreme views—can deny mother­hood to be the. flower of all woman's individuality, physical and psychical. If higher education on male lines has done anything wrong to women, it is this: it has by arresting the full develop­ment of her physique, by enervating her nerves, made her inca­pable of attaining the full growth of womanhood of which motherhood is the final symbol. There is no surprise that the graduates of English and American universities, with their physi­cal energies sapped for any healthy reproduction, should come out in the world with a-maternal feelings and should try to cover this up with false pretentious that their unmarried state is due to their desire to devote their lives to some social service. It is really a pity that many a fine girlhood which, if spared of this over­straining education, would blossom into fine womanhood and would give real service to society by giving it healthy and vigo­rous children, is victimized under an entirely false and misguided idealism.
All these defects in the modern system of female education can be remedied if co-education is entirely given up, separate institu­tions for boys and girls are set up and, consistent with the special needs of each sex, two parallel systems of education and curricula of studies are evolved, so that the large mass of girls who are to be the future mothers of the race may receive preparatory training for their special calling. A limited number of women there will always be whose special gifts may entitle them to a different kind of education, but the interests of the many should not be sacrificed for the chosen few. And even these women of special gifts and endowments should not refuse the call of motherhood because they can reproduce and enlarge their gifts by becoming mother*. In a country which is backward like our own, there may be difficulties in obtaining the requisite number of female teachers for higher arts

and branches of knowledge, but this difficulty does not tilt the scale in favour of co-education. Islam allows men and women of ad­vanced age who have lost sexual attraction to mix with members of the other sex, under the stress of social or religious necessity. To prepare and train women teachers in the higher branches of knowledge, male teachers and professors of advanced age can be employed in sufficient numbers. When an adequate number of women have been trained, the need for even this amount of co­education will disappear.

Birth Control
Birth Control in its modern form was not practised in the early days of Islam. No doubt, infanticide, abortion and other methods of getting rid of unwanted children were prevalent in Arabia, as in other parts of the world, and Islam forbade them completely. The Qur'an said: 'Do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We will provide for them and for you.' The question is whether this injuc-tion can be applied to modern methods of birth control which do not amount to killing but aim at the prevention of conception. But this is not the only vital issue. There is the further question whether Islam would have approved of artificial methods for limiting popu­lation, if such methods had been used in its day. No clear-cut instru­ctions are available either in the Qur'an or in the traditions of the Prophet. We will have to decide them on the basis of the general tenor and spirit of Islamic teachings, and the moral considerations involved therein. The Qur'an's own accepted method in deciding such doubtful issues is to weigh the good and the evil of a habit, institution or way of life, and condemn it if its evil is likely to exce­ed the good and vice versa. For example, in prohibiting the use of alcoholic liquor, the Qur'an says: 'Its sin and evil far outweigh its benefits.' Thus the Qur'an recognises that there are some benefits also in the use of wine but condemns it because the evils of it are more numerous and more dangerous. Proceeding on this basis, let us analyse the argument for and against birth control.
Among the foremost advocates of birth control in modern times Havelock Ellis stands most prominent, apart from Margaret Sanger.In his book on Life and Sex he has devoted a whole chapter entitled 'The Individual and the Race' to prove the thesis that bjrth control is a social necessity and serves the interest of the race. Let us give a few quotations from this book. Stressing the eugenic aspect of birth control, Ellis says:
It is often said—I have said it myself—that birth-control when practised merely as a limitation of the family scarcely suffices to further the eugenic progress of the race. If it is not deliberately directed towards the elimination of the worst stocks or the worst possibilities in the blending of stocks, it may even tend to dimi­nish the better stocks since it is the better stocks that are least likely to propagate at random. This is true if other conditions remain equal. It is evident, however, that the other conditions will not remain equal, for no evidence has yet been brought for­ward to show that birth-control, even when practised without regard to eugenic considerations—doubtless the usual rule up to the present—has produced any degeneration of the race.Qn the contrary, the evidence seems to show that it has improved the race.
Examining the effect of birth control on the health of mothers, Havelock Ellis writes in the same chapter.
There will probably be a longer interval between the birth of the children, which has been demonstrated by Ewart and others to be an important factor not only in preserving the health of the mother but in increasing the health and size of the child. The diminution in the number of children renders it possible to bes­tow a greater amount of care on each child. Moreover, the better economic position of the father, due to the smaller number of individuals he has to support, makes it possible for the family to live under improved conditions as regards nourishment, hygiene and comfort. The observance of birth-control is thus a far more effective lever for raising the state of the social environ­ment and improving the conditions of breeding, than is direct action on the part of the community in its collective capacity to attain the same end.
Developing this argument further with reference to the ehecis of . .if, in accordance with the most careful modem investigations, we recognize that heredity is supreme, that the qualities we have inherited from our ancestors count far more in our lives than anything we have acquired by our own personal efforts, then we have to admit that the capable man's wealth is more the commu­nity's concern than his own. So that neither the capable nor the incapable are entitled to an unqualified power of freedom, and neither, like-wise, are justly liable to be burdened by an unquali­fied responsibility.
Socialists also come in for scathing criticism by Havelock Ellis, because they are opposed to birth control.
Put social conditions on a sound basis, the people on this side often say, let all receive an adequate economic return for their work and be recognized as having a claim for an adequate share in the products .of society and there is no need to worry about the race or about the need for birth-control; all will go well of itself. There is not the slightest ground for any such comfortable belief.
And further the same writer says:
This prejudice [against birth control is based on the ground that bad economic conditions, and an unwholesome environment are the source of all social evils and that a better distribution of wealth or a vast scheme of social welfare is the one thing neces­sary. ... It is certainly impossible to overrate the importance of the economic factor in society or of a good environment. And it is true that eugenics also, like birth-control alone, can effect little if the economic basis of society is unsound. But it is equally certain that the economic factor can never in itself suffice for fine living or even as a cure-all of social and racial diseases. Its value is not that it can effect aay of these things but that it fur­nishes the favourable conditions for effecting them. He would be foolish indeed who went to the rich to find the example of good breeding and, as is well known, it is not with the rich that the future of the race lies. The fact that under any economic system
the responsible personal direction of the individual and the family remains equally necessary, and no progress is possible so long as the individual casts all responsibility away from himself on the social group he forms part of.
In another book, Psychology of Sex, Havelock Ellis says:
The necessity of birth-control is now generally recognized, not only by those who do not desire to have children, but by those who do. The reason is that, both for the sake of the mother and for the health and well-being of the off-spring, it is desirable that births should be properly spaced, allowing at least an interval of two years between births, while there are various legitimate reasons, economic or other, why those who marry early do not see their way to become parents immediately. The child, there­fore, however much desired, should come at a time when the parents are best able to receive it and to care for it. Moreover the days of large families are over. Alike for the sake of the family and in the interest of the nation and the race an average of between two or three for each married couple suffices, and under the hygienic conditions of civilization is ample to keep up the population. When for any good reason, such as the health of the mother or the existence, in either parent, of a bad heredity which should not be carried on, conception cannot be allowed, then strict birth-control is compulsory.
So far we have quoted arguments in favour of birth control. Now let us see the other side of the picture. It must be recognized that over-population is not the only evil which has to be fought against and controlled. A falling birth-rate and a diminution of population is at least an equally serious evil. In the decline of civilisations, under-population, and not over-population, is a com­mon symptom. This is true of the Roman civilisation which was faced with serious depopulation in its period of decline. Similarly, one factor in the defeat of modern France against Hitlerite Ger­many was lack of manpower. This was emphasised by Marshal Petain in his speech on the morrow of French defeat. The reason is that love of luxury and comfort among the richer classes and fear of poverty and insecurity among the poor make them un­willing to bring more children in the world. This tendency has been greatly facilitated by the use of birth-control methods. As Marga­ret Mead has pointed out in her book, Male and Female:'Every human society is faced not with one population problem but with two: How to beget and rear enough children and not to beget and rear too many? The definition of "enough" and "too many" varies enormously.' The same writer, pointing to the growing sterility among men and women, adds: 'There seems to be a deep-seated belief that conception is an almost automatic process, and that un­less drastic measures are taken every sexual act will result in a child. The story of the king and the queen who had no children is replaced by jokes based on contraceptive failures. Even in the face of rising sterility rates and the occasional sterility clinic, the popular mind is still focussed on how not to have children rather than how to have them.' On this evidence, in some countries the widespread use of contraceptives is creating a serious danger of depopulation, apart from facilitating and widening the range of extra-matrimonial illicit sexual relations which is undermining the stability of the home and the family. Let us quote Dr. Westermarck who says in Future of Marriage in Western Civilization: 'While the knowledge of contraceptives may increase the marriage rate, it also facilitates extra-matrimonial intercourse, the great frequency of which is, in our days, regarded as another indication of the doom of marriage.' The cult of birth control was one of the by-products of the Mal-thusian theory that the rate of increase of population is far in excess of any increase in the means of subsistence and if it is allow­ed to go on unchecked, a point will come when most of the human race will have starved out. This false theory has been exploded, since then, but its influence on the minds of people everywhere is still so great that they overlook the danger of depopulation. As Stefansson said in 1925:'According to the false Malthusianism of Malthus himself, we should all have starved to death sometime ago .... But here we all are, alive, prosperous and sceptical of the prophets of doom.' What Malthus and his supporters overlooked was that humanity is infinitely creative, if it does not lose its spiritual moorings or sink into gross and sordid materialism. The productive powers of man have increased at a much faster rate than his num­bers. If they have failed to make him happier and contented, it is because, in the mad race for power and wealth, they are being put to destructive uses. As science and knowledge increase, the earth will support more and more of human beings, provided man's spirituality and vision also expand in the right direction. There was never really any danger of population increasing faster than human productivity. Even the available space on earth for human habita­tion is not so limited as many people imagine. Geographical explo­rations are opening up new areas with immensely rich resources which can be made fit for human habitation with the help of scienti­fic power at the disposal of man. This theme has been very brillia­ntly treated by Parker Hanson in his book, New Worlds Emerging. We give here a few quotations from this great book which will show how much habitable space and available resources are still to be tapped by mankind. Discussing the methods which have been and can be used for meeting the threat of over-population, Hanson says: 'Throughout history and prehistory, man has met his ever-recurring problem of over-population, not in any one way but by a complex, interrelated application of three distinct lines of effort, namely, migration, change of social and economic organization, and technical invention.' Strikingly enough, Hanson does not men­tion birth control as one of the methods for meeting the danger of over-population, because no really great and creative civilisation has ever resorted to birth control except in its period of decadence. The three methods referred to by Hanson are still open to huma­nity. With regard to the first of these, migration, let us study his conclusions. Speaking about the Amazon basin, he says:
The Amazon basin, greatest of all the tropical frontiers, is still being discounted or written off at a time when its possibilities for colonization and development need, in view of the world's present-day problems, the most serious considerations .... Is much of the Amazon valley a semi-swamp? Is the climate so terrible that nobody would want to live there? As long as there is no great pressure for developing the region, such questions are relatively unimportant for all but the few hundred thousand white men and women—and the primitive Indians— who live there and seem to get along reasonably well.
Proceeding further, he asks:
Today, four centuries after its discovery by white explorers, the Amazon basin is still an almost empty frontier, undeveloped, wild and often turbulent. Does it mean that it must always re- main so? Is its present condition ascribable to natural conditions or to the accidents of history? Was its nature always hostile to human occupation and culture? If not, how do the white men differ from the men who once got along well there? Are those differences physical or emotional or do they stem from differing social outlook?.. .As long as the white man felt that he could not live in the tropics except as a colonial administrator, with coloured labour doing his work for him, the Amazon basin, lacking manpower, had no chance. If it is to be developed today, the job must be done by men and women who make their homes there. There may be white, brown, black, yellow or any other colour, but modern immigration policies and racial stirrings prohibit the importation of large racial blocs to be segregated from the overlords as cheap labour. The basin has been describ­ed several times in the past two centuries as a potential area of white settlement and it is today again being regarded in that light.
William Lewis Herndon who was -sent to Amazon in 1851 to examine the possibilities of its future expansions summed up his im­pressions as follows:
It is.. .sad to think that.. .this country has not more than one inhabitant for every ten square miles of land; that it is al­most a wilderness; but being capable, as it is, of yielding support and luxury to millions of civilized people. . .it should be but a dwelling-place of the savage and the wild beast.
About the riches and resources of this valley, Hanson says:
Few laymen have a true conception of the Amazon basin's size, wealth and variety, or of the truly staggering propositions of the river system itself. In length, the Amazon river is exceeded only by the Nile, and very little by it, in volume of water, by no three of the world's rivers combined. There are some eleven hun­dred tributaries of the Amazon, not counting thousands of brooks. Nine or ten of these tributaries exceed the Rhine in length, and carry more than double its volume of water. Seven of them are over a thousand miles long, and one, the Madeira, is nearly three thousand miles from source to mouth.. . .The area drained by that lordly river is an empire virtually untapped and unpooled in the heart of Western Hemisphere, some two million seven hundred thousand miles in extent, or almost as large as the continental United States with its three million square miles. It is as varied as the United States, and possibly as rich in the quantity and variety of its natural resources.
It is after reading such passages that one is reminded of the Quranic promise: 'Do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We shall provide for them and for you.' The Qur'an assumes^ of course, as a precondition, that men will accept its pattern of life and scheme of values, will be creative and co-operative and not fall into worshipping wealth and power so as to engage in mutual self-destruction.
Let us now see the possibilities of development and colonisation in Iceland. Before discussing this question, Parker Hanson dejivers a strong attack against the advocates of birth control. He says:
One of the most alarming symptoms of today's psychology of hysteria is the astonishing popularity of those prophets of doom who summarily dismiss both north and south as regions of new endeavour, look about at the lands in between, state correctly that our culture has made a mess of its utilization of natural re­sources, and arrive—via the so-called Malthusian law—at the conviction that there is now no real solution to the Western world's problems except the energetic conservation of natural resources going hand in hand with the partial extermination of human resources, through birth-control—imposed by the few on the many.
Regarding the population and resources of Iceland, Hanson remarks:
In the days of emigration to the United States, Iceland had half its present number of people and was over-populated in line with the Smith-Philip's dictum that 'the meagre resources of the polar and sub-polar regions can support only a sparse popula­tion*. Today with the number of its inhabitants growing steadily and rapidly, the land is decidedly under-populated in relation to its aspirations and potentialities. Changes in Icelandic life, both today and in the past, are worth-watching. Several scientists have called it the finest available laboratory and observation post for the life of man. Nowhere else in the white man's world do we find the same purity of conditions as there. ...
About the wealth and resources of Iceland, the same author writes:
As though to compensate for its lack of fuels, the republic has large stores of potential water-power available. Its calculated four million horse-power, or 32 per inhabitant, are greater per capita than those known for any other country on earth. Only a small fraction of that power has been developed for lighting, heating and industrial enterprises, but plans for ever-increasing utilization go steadily forward... .The country's volcanic heat is spectacular. Early in the century a number of farmers began to realize that they had hot springs on their land, even if they did lack fuels and means for transporting such fuels from the outside. They then began to pipe those springs into radiators in their homes, as others harnessed small local waterfalls through power plants that were often in part made at home, and used the electri­city for heat, light and cooking. Natural hot water began also to be used for agricultural purposes. In places it is today run over the ground for irrigation or warmth, in others it is run through buried pipes, in still others it is used to warm glass-covered hot­houses. Together with an active program of agricultural develop­ment, it has resulted in a marked increase of crop production, both in quantity and kind. Many vegetable crops, formerly con­sidered impossible in Iceland, are now produced and reduce the country's import of food by that much.
Here again is a picture of the Arctic regions drawn by Parker Hanson in his memorable book:
In 1935 there was published a geological map showing two hundred and twenty-eight of the two hundred and seventy-three places where valuable minerals had been found in the Soviet Arctic. A compilation of the results of the preceding fifteen years of study of the mineral deposits in the Soviet Arctic was com­pleted by the geological section of the Arctic Institute, revealing
that one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven points had been located where there was a suggestion of mineral deposits, al­though only relatively few of them were estimated to have indus­trial value. In spite of the tempo and extent of the work accom­plished up to 1936, however, only about 100,000 square, miles, or less than five per cent of the Arctic land, had been surveyed.
Coal, iron, nickel, lead, zinc, copper, various sulphites, salt, and peat are only a few subsoil resources that have been located in the Soviet Arctic since 1917. As now transportation facilities by water, land, and air make them available, as the Russians build cities and mining camps and get workers to the scene, these are being developed in line with the general northward course of Russia's economy.
Finally, about Alaska, the author of the New Worlds Emerging says:
Geographically, the territory has room for millions of new settlers. The former mental barriers which tended to keep them out are breaking down; no longer is Alaska the 'remote and bar­barous region which under ordinary human conditions will never be largely peopled except by savages'. As the climate improves in men's thinking, the physical resources of Alaska are being studi­ed and are duly proving richer and more abundant. The most significant aspect of the problem is the economy. It is economic Alaska, within which there is little room for new settlers; it must expand before newcomers make place for themselves in the Territory and thereby add to its and our material prosperity.
The Alaskan delegate (without vote) to the American Congress, in a speech on 21 May 1936, stated:
We find. . .that Alaska exceeds in area the combined areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland, which now support in comfort more than 12,000,000 people. We find that Finland has no natu­ral gold reserves of any kind; has very little of copper; that its iron reserves are much less than those of Alaska; that its fisheries are only a fraction of the value of the Alaska fisheries; that its agricultural and grazing lands are approximately one-sixth of the area of the farming and grazing lands of Alaska; that it has no coal reserves, no petroleum reserves; in reindeer pasture Finland has 8,000 square miles, Alaska 240,000 square miles. And yet this country sustains a cultural as well as a rugged population of 3,500,000.
A comparison of Alaska with Sweden, which has a population of 6,000,000 is equally favourable to the Territory. Sweden has an area of 173,550 square miles; its farming and grazing lands do not in area exceed one-half of those of Alaska; and yet its agricultural population comprises approximately 2,700,000 people, Sweden has in reindeer pasture about 40,000 square miles, as against 240,000 square miles in Alaska. Sweden, like Finland, has nothing in the way of natural gold reserves, and its copper reserves are very small indeed as compared with the very large copper reserves of Alaska. . . .Alaska has large deposits of marble, Sweden little. Alaska apparently has large reserves of petroleum, and Sweden is entirely without this resource. . . .The fisheries of Sweden, although extensive, do not amount in value to half of those of Alaska. . . .So when I conclude, as I do, that the territory of Alaska is capable of supporting a population of several millions. I am not drawing at all upon my imagina­tion but basing it upon what has been done in the old world and upon an impartial consideration of geographic and scientific facts.
The report on Alaska's post-war economic development dis­cusses at length the problem of agricultural expansion. It states:
Of the millions of acres of potentially arable land in the Terri­tory, Alaska farms contain only about 11,000 acres now classified as crop-land.
The report adds:

It is estimated that South-East Alaskan pulpwood forests could support an industry employing at least 6,000 workers full time in this mill and the woods. Directly and indirectly the industry could be expected to provide year-round economic support for 25,000 persons.
'It should be noted,' says Hanson, 'that the statement applies to only a small part of the territory's total forest reserves.'
Mining expansion is another aspect of the Alaskan development treated in the report:
Today gold is the Territory's greatest mineral output. It ac­counts for ninety-two per cent of the total. There are, however, innumerable possibilities for mining activities on coal, iron, copper, nickel, chromite and limestone, to mention only a few, specially when such activity comes to be combined with the uti­lisation of part of the Territory's extremely low-cost potential hydro-electric power towards the creation of electro-metallurgi­cal and electro-chemical industries.
The above extracts will show that the available space for human hab.tation and the untapped resources of the world are sufficient to support the growing population of the earth and those who advocate the use of birth control on the basis that the population of the world will soon outrun the means of subsistence do not take into account the limitless resources which the Creator has placed at the disposal of man. As if to contradict such pessimists, the Holy Qur'an draws pointed attention to the infinitude of Divine power and asks man to trust His infinite providence: 'And there is not a thing in the world but with Us are its treasures, but We do not send it down except in a known measure' (xv. 20). Here is comfort for those who despair of the power of God to provide for His creatures. When we add to this the infinite creative power with which man has been endowed and which finds its visible embodi­ment in the progress of science and technology, we must dismiss all Malthusian fears as unreal.
Turning to the economic aspect of the question, we must empha­sise one factor which the advocates of birth control seem to have lost sight of. It is that every child who comes into the world re­mains as an economic burden on his parents and society only so long as his creative faculties are undeveloped. As soon as he be­comes creative—and all individuals properly educated are creative —lie pays back to his family and society more than what they contribute towards his growth and development. If lack of economic resources or a defective and unscientific education does not release his latent creativity, it is not the fault of his Maker but of the social system in which he is born. As far as Nature is concerned, it never really brings a fresh individual in society without implant­ing in him the seeds of creativity and endowing him with capa­bilities of enriching his society materially, and spiritually. Properly brought up and scientifically educated, every human being is capa­ble of creating more wealth than he can possibly use for his indi­vidual needs and of giving back more than what his parents have invested on him. From this point of view the birth of every child is an addition to social wealth for which humanity ought to be thank­ful to God. It is not a curse to be eliminated and fought against. When people begin to prevent the birth of children and are afraid of every new addition to human population, it is a sure sign that the society in which they live has ceased to be creative and the acquisitive spirit has so far acquired ascendancy over the mind of the people as to destroy the economic equilibrium of society. In a nation which enjoys economic health and provides equal oppor­tunities for all its members, nobody should be afraid of having an extra child. It is social and economic injustice and the accumula­tion of wealth in the hands of an uncreative oligarchy of politi­cians, officials, traders, industrialists and landlords which reduces the common man to poverty and makes him unwilling to add to his burdens by bringing into the world more mouths to feed. The advocacy of birth control really springs from a subconscious desire to keep intact the socio-economic organisation of an unjust society. It is always a convenient device of the privileged classes when they feel that they cannot prevent the growth of disaffection among the poor without radical changes in the economic structure of society. In the circumstances they feel that a further deterioration in the economic situation of the poor cannot be arrested without the widespread use of birth control. So, instead of cutting down their own privileges and lowering their own luxurious standards of living, they offer the palliative of birth control to the people low down in the scale of life.
Havelock Ellis has attacked the socialists for opposing the use of birth-control methods. But, apart from eugenic considerations, he produces no convincing arguments as to why, instead of exter­minating the human race partially or wholly, society should not be so reorganised economically as to remove the fear of poverty on account of procreation. As regards eugenics what Havelock Ellis seems to forget is that the application of eugenic principles will lead to much interference in private and family matters. It is the State, after all, which will decide who shall procreate and to what extent particular stocks shall be encouraged to propagate themselves and what shall be with-held from so doing. Is there any guarantee that the State will not misuse its authority for political ends or that the sordid interests of a small group, holding power in the State, shall not determine the application of eugenic principles to the prejudice of its opponents. And again, how will the State or any other cor­porate body enforce its decisions on unwilling persons?—A secret police force to watch the operations of birth control and report to the authorities.—Surely this is an absurd idea!
The most serious evil which is likely to attend the spread of birth-control methods is that once people get used to artificial family limitation, there will be nothing to prevent them from carry­ing that limitation to its furthermost extent and reducing the population to a dangerously low extent. There is no limit to which love of ease and luxuries may not carry a people when they once become addicted to these things. Is there any real need for provi­ding more incentives towards life of irresponsibility? Human nature is already ballasted with this tendency, and for this very reason procreation in man creates its own natural checks. As soon as a couple feel that more children will mean extray burden, they take necessary precautions, as far as they can, to prevent more births. To provide artificial checks and push human beings on the road to pleasure-loving and irresponsibility is tantamount to committing national suicide. When race extermination has become the rage and unwillingness to suffer and sacrifice for the sake of the family and the nation has become deep-rooted, you can do nothing effective to reverse the process or change the habits of a people within a reasonable distance of time. To introduce such dangerous methods in a nation without an eye on future consequences and psychologi­cal reactions on the mental and spiritual attitudes of men and women is the height of unwisdom. A few fleeting advantages should not blind us against far more effective and permanent national and moral injuries. A people using birth-control methods on a large x scale may have more comforts, better standards of economic prosperity and wider educational opportunities, but they are also likely to be incapable of making big sacrifices or undergoing great hardships for any ideal—social, religious or national. Can such a people survive in a world where these very qualities ultimately determine the chances of survival? The fear that bigger families will mean more hardships and a tougher economic struggle should be balanced by the consideration that it is through struggle, sacrifice and hardship that great individuals as well as nations have achieved success and glory and left their imprint on the sands of time. Very few among the great men of the world and not one among the great nations of the earth initially had those comforts, luxuries and facilities which the advocates of birth control consider to be necessary for the health, happiness and progress of human beings. A small measure of poverty, provided it is not extreme and such as to freeze and corrode the human soul, provides an ideal incen­tive to progressive effort for creative individuals and nations than all the wealth and comforts sought after by the friends of race extermination. No great creative spiritual or cultural accomplish­ment has ever_come from the rich who wallow in luxury, waste, extravagance, greed, acquisitiveness and ungodly arrogance. It is the poor individuals and nations that have throughout history lit the lamp of spirituality, culture and high scientific achievements. No great soul was ever afraid of moderate poverty. Let us not be carried away by the slogans of a decrepit civilisation. A society which does not allow the majority of human beings to be reduced to abject poverty in order to provide wealth and luxury and com­fort to a privileged group has little need of birth control. Let all people live a life of simple habits, let them have freedom from the ever-recurring threat of starvation, let them be provided with the necessaries of life, even without its superfluities, and, finally, let them be creative in thought and deed, not acquisitive in spirit and attitude, and every fresh addition to the human population will but increase the wealth, happiness and virtue of mankind.

Deviations From Islam
During the course of the last thirteen hundred years Muslim so­ciety has deviated in many respects from the teachings of Islam. This deviation has been more marked in the sphere of sex relations than in others. A variety of circumstances have conspired to make Muslims take an extremely narrow view of feminine rights and the position of women in Muslim society, with the result that their freedom has been curtailed in many directions and their sphere of activity narrowed down to the confines of the home and the family, although Islamic injunctions in respect of womanly rights and duties are marked by an elasticity and catholicity which should have enabled Muslims to march with the times and make the social readjustments rendered necessary by the demands of a new age.
To understand how Muslim women suffered from un-Islamic practices and non-religious customs, let us go back to the original teachings of Islam and the actual historical setting which occa­sioned them. In prc-Islamic Arabia, women held no better status than that accorded to the slaves. Islam gave them equality with men and taught the Arabs that they were as much of human beings as members of the male sex with a distinct individuality of their own which should be respected ajtd given due weight in the apportionment of their rights and functions. But in one respect Islam had to take drastic steps for controlling women's freedom. Despite their low status and virtual rightlcssncss, women in prc-Iskimic Arabia enjoyed a mcas ire of sexual freedom amounting to license which led to widespread illicit unions and promiscuity in sex' relations. The sexual morality of the Arabs had sunk so low that women were viewed only as a means of sexual gratification or at best a vehicle of procreation. Marriage ties were very loose and there was not much stability in family life. Women moved out of their homes with a style of dress that afforded unlimited occasions for sexual excitement to strangers; their looks and manners too were ill-calculated to ensure a healthy standard of sex morality. The Qur'an itself refers to this situation in the following verses:
O wives of the Prophet, ye are not as other women. If ye fear God, be not too complaisant in speech lest he should covet in whose heart is a disease of incontinance, but speak the speech which is convenient; and stay at home and do not go out with the display and ostentation of the former time of ignorance (xxxiii. 32-33).
As these verses show, women in pre-Islamic Arabia did not ob­serve any rules of decency while going out and dressed themselves With great ostentation with the intention of looking attractive to the male sex. Similarly, the injunctions given by the Holy Qur'an regarding the necessity of taking permission before entering the houses of other people show how the rude and barbarous Arabs did not know even the ordinary rules of propriety and freely entered each other's houses without permission. As regards the looseness of marriage ties and the degrading sexual morality of the Arabs, we have the evidence of no less a person than 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, who is reported to have said:
During the Jahilliyyah (pre-Islamic era) there were four kinds of marriages. One of them was like our own form of marriage in which one person asked another for the hand of his daughter or ward, fixed the dowry and then took her in marriage. Another form of marriage was this. As soon as. a woman became clean after her period of menstruation, she was sent by her husband to another person who had sexual intercourse with her, while her husband left her for a period and would not touch her, until she became pregnant by the other person. When this happened, the husband again had normal sexual relations with her and he did all this so that he may have a child of superior blood. This form of marriage was called Nikah-i-Istibza. A third form of marriage
was also current. About ten or less than ten persons gathered and had sexual intercourse with a woman, turn by turn. When she became pregnant and gave birth to a child, she sent for all of them* and none could refuse her invitation. When all her lovers gathered together she would say: You all know what has happened. Here is the child and it is the son of such and such a person. She named whatever person she liked and then the per­son could not refuse and took the child for his son and the woman for his wife. There was also a fourth form of marriage. A number of men came to visit a woman and she could not refuse. These women were prostitutes and had a flag planted before their doors. So, many persons entered her house and had intercourse with her. When one of them conceived and delivered a child, she called them before her and, pointing towards the features of the child, named one of them as its father. Then he had to take the child, while she became his regular wife since then (Abu Dawud).
This tradition gives a clear picture of the low standards of sexual morality prevalent in Arabia before the advent of Islam. In these conditions, Islam found it necessary to impose certain restrictions on the dress and movement of women with a view to preventing the formation of illicit sexual relations and ensure a healthy and stable family life. These restrictions were not intended for all time and for every stage of historical and social development. They could be relaxed or tightened in accordance with changes in social and cultural conditions and the moral level of the people. Subse­quent practice of the Prophet's Successors showed that there was a large degree of elasticity in these rules, and the State was free to in­troduce new regulations or tighten the old ones as needs dictated. During the regime of 'Umar, the Second Caliph, it wis noted that, owing to the inflow of wealth, the standard of sexual morality was again falling. Accordingly 'Umar asked women to pray at home instead of attending congregational prayers in the mosques. He could not totally abolish the right of women to attend the mosques, but he greatly preferred to see them pray at home and took mea­sures for persuading them to do so. This shows that the rules and restrictions regarding the movement of women outside their homes were elastic enough to admit of variation. Similarly, in the matter of divorce also, 'Umar established a new rule which was a depar- ture from the rules laid down by the Prophet. According to the practice observed by the Prophet, a pronouncement of divorce, to be considered final, must be delivered at three separate intervals of one month each. 'Umar found that people were generally careless in divorcing their wives and took the matter rather lightly. Accor­dingly he enforced the rule that even if three pronouncements of divorce were delivered at a single sitting, they would have the effect of final separation between the couple. This was a kind of punitive measure to bring home to the people the seriousness of the matter so that they might be careful in pronouncing divorce. Its enforce­ment again showed that rules and regulations concerning marriage, divorce, dress and movement of women were capable of modifi­cation and relaxation, according to the circumstances and condi­tions. This fact has now been completely forgotten by the Muslims. After the conquest of Syria, Iraq and other parts of Western Asia, social conditions in Arabia began to change quickly. During the period of early Islam, every Muslim, man and woman, was a toiler, worker and warrior. Naturally total segregation of sexes could not be enforced, because women had to move out of their homes for economic, religious and other reasons. In fact, according to a tradition reported by Umm 'Atiyyah Nasibah, the Prophet had issued definite orders that all women, including girls, should attend 'Id-ul-Fitr congregations. It was because Islam, from its very inception, realised the impracticability of total sex segregation, that it laid down rules of decency concerning the appearance, behaviour and dress of women. But with the extension of the area of Arab conquests, an unbelievable amount of wealth began to flow in. This fact coupled with the division of conquered land among the military leaders and warriors created a leisured class of Muslim landlords, barons and rich men, who did not require the economic cooperation of their womenfolk in earning their bread. They lived in luxury and comfort without making any economic efforts. Naturally the social habits of newly-risen rich classes were different from the Muslim toilers and warriors. The impact of these conditions on the social rights and status of women proved highly deleterious. The appearance of feudalism, the effect of social contacts with the people of the conquered countries and the coming into being of a leisured class devoted to the pursuit of physical pleasures contributed to lower the general standard of sex morality among the Muslims. The kings and monarchs in the Muslim countries and along with them the courtiers and aristocrats developed the institution of Harem. There was no limit to the number of concubines they could keep and since it was highly probable that many of them would remain sexually dissatisfied, extraordinary measures were taken to erect barriers between them and the outside world. Strict seclusion of women and total segre­gation of sexes among the rulers, the feudal barons and other sections of the population dependent on the monarchs or allied to aristocracy began as an inevitable process. Its effects gradually percolated down to the middle classes also who could earn their living without any economic co-operation of women. That this kind of seclusion and absolute sex segregation had no religious sanction behind it, is proved by the fact that Muslim women belonging to the lower and poorer classes of Muslims have never observed that kind of strict purdah which characterises the life of middle and upper classes of Muslims. Similarly, the poorer classes among Muslims have not developed segregation of sexes to the same extent as the upper classes. It is true that Islam laid down a few rules for regulating the movement, dress and speech of women, but it nowhere expressly forbade them to take part in economic, social or political activities. The rich and leisured classes could afford the luxury of purdah and segregation because without the economic cooperation of women the male membeis of their families could earn sufficient living. But as the lower classes could not make both ends meet without the participation of women in economic activities, the poorer Muslims could not go to the extremes obser­vable among the upper and middle classes. It is true that in urban areas, owing to the example of the wealthy and richer classes, even the poorer sections of Muslims show some traces of the pattern developed by their superiors, but anyone visiting the rural areas will be struck by the freedom with which men and women talk to each other and jointly carry on the business of life. In the north-west of Pakistan, there is a large tribal territory whose popu­lation consists of orthodox Muslims living in primitive simplicity. Their sexual morality is of an unusually high standard and yet they do not observe purdah nor are their womenfolk kept secluded and segregated from men. This shows that the segregation of women among middle-class Muslims is a purely economic pheno­menon having nothing religious about it. The fact is that the economic organisation of societies and classes
jkiL plays a very large part in determining sex relations. As the economic conditions keep changing from time to time, Islam, in accordance with its character as a universal religion, did not lay down any rigid rules regarding the movement of women outside their homes and their joint participation with men in political, social and economic activities. Such restrictions as it did lay down concerning the dress, looks and manners of women when going out were highly elastic and could be relaxed or stiffened in accordance with changed condi­tions. This fact is amply borne out by the freedom with which women were allowed to move and take part in wars. As we have already stated in a previous chapter, in the Battle of Uhud, 'Ayeshah, the Prophet's wife, and another Muslim lady Umm Salim helped the Muslim warriors in their fight against the unbe­lievers and did not observe usual restrictions with regard to female dress. From this it is easy to understand what the attitude of Islam would have been if it had appeared not in the thirteenth but in the twentieth century when every nation has to keep itself fully pre­pared for a war of defence, months and years ahead of actual warfare. A modern war requires, not only intensive and extensive training hi purely military arts and civil defence, etc., involving members of either sex, but also a large degree of industrialisation. Now, industrialisation is a process which is invariably attended with a readjustment of sex relations. It is impossible to maintain the total segregation of sexes in a fully or even partially industri­alised country. It is this aspect of the matter which has been for­gotten by orthodox Muslims who insist on a rigid enforcement of segregation. What they do not take into account is that, in the first place, men and women in early Islam were never completely segre­gated and, secondly, whatever degree of segregation then existed was possible only because the economic conditions of the early age of Islam did not require the full co-operation of women in national affairs. But total segregation of the sexes in the present age of recurring wars and increasing industrialisation, is an utter im­possibility. Islam being a practical religion, which takes into full account the needs of individual as well as national self-preservation and permits under such extreme conditions things otherwise ad­mittedly unlawful, cannot stand in the way of women working side by side with men in the sphere of industry and civil defence, etc., to meet the threat of foreign aggression. As we have shown above, in its own day, Islam allowed women to take part in religious wars.
But, as we have already pointed out,whenever it becomes necessary for men and women to meet and work together, under the stress of a social necessity, and not for the sake of personal and private enjoyment, they must observe those restrictions of dress and look which Islam has enjoined upon its followers.
There is no doubt that Islam desires to enforce certain standards of decency and also devised precautionary measures to check indi­scriminate and unnecessary intermixture of men and women. Its rules of decency and the restrictions it has devised concerning the dress and m6vem0nt of women can be enforced with suitable modi­fications even under the new social and political conditions and it is the duty of an Islamic State to see that, as far as possible, the sexual morality of men and women is not lowered by the readjust­ment in sex relations arising from the changed situation in modern days. It is also necessary to remember that Islam gives great im­portance to a stable family life and does not approve of any pattern of social and economic organisation which has a disturbing effect on the family. According to Islamic conceptioris of womanly fun­ctions, a woman should not take part in any social, political or industrial activity at the cost of her family responsibility. A modern Islamic State should regulate the industrial and social activities of women in such a manner that they can still find time to look after their homes and children. For example, newly-married women with one or two children and expecting more births can be totally debarred from industrial activity. Girls receiving education can also be similarly treated. Married women whose children are grown up or who do not expect more births should be encouraged to work in factories. Generally, the working hours of women should not be allowed to exceed beyond four or five. They should also be given maternity leave and other special concessions. A minimum and maximum age may also be fixed for industrial work'. In this way, many provisions can be framed to ensure that the management of the home and the interests of children do not suffer in consequence of the participation of women in industrial activity. With these safeguards and precautions, Muslim women will be able to work for the defence and industrial progress of their nation without endangering the sexual health of the community and in full accord with Islamic injunctions designed to protect them from evil ways. We have dealt at length with the position of women in Islam and its attitude towards problems such as co-education and birth control, etc. It is clear from the foregoing pages that, as far as legal and property rights and facilities for divorce are concerned, Islam has given equal rights to the members of the female sex. Many of the rights conferred on women by the Prophet of Islam fourteen hundred years ago have only partially and grudgingly been given to them in Western and Eastern countries during the course of the last two centuries. Similarly, with respect to sex equality, the essential human dignity and fundamental equality of women, Islam is at one with the leaders of the feminist movement. But as the application of an abstract principle is qualified and conditioned by social realities and concrete situations, Islam has modified its stand on sex equality in consonance with social, biological and sex realities. What the modern women and particularly those of Pakis­tan, who are trying to ape foreign customs and manners, are likely to find objectionable in Islam are not the legal, economic and social rights it has conferred on them, for on this score they can hardly have any genuine grievance, but the few social and family duties and some slight restrictions on dress, speech and movement which have been prescribed for them in order to regulate sex and social behaviour. We have already discussed in the foregoing chapters the justification for these restrictions.Untrammelled freedom amounting to license is self-stultifying and soon negates itself. Many of the checks devised by Islam to limit male and female freedom in regard to dress, speech and movement spring from biological and sexual facts which can be ignored only at a peril. Sexual misconduct is justly abhorred and condemned by Islam as the source of innumer­able social evils. It is to prevent such misconduct that a few restri­ctions have been placed both on men and women. If men have been more easily let off and fewer restrictions have been placed on them, it is because they have to bear the main burden of economic responsibility and their economic activities demand greater freedom of movement. Even in advanced countries where women have come forward to earn their own living, legal responsibility for the main­tenance of the family still rests with men. No doubt, a social system may be developed in which the husband and the wife equally share the responsibility of providing economic sustenance to the family. But this is still a remote possibility. Apart from this, any arrange­ment whereby women are forced to share in an equal measure the economic responsibility of winning the bread for the family is really an infringement of the principle of equality, because men cannot equally share with them the responsibility of motherhood. So under a system which places equal economic burden on women, the latter will be at a serious disadvantage. They will have to shoulder heavier burdens without the accession of additional rights. This will not lead to equality but to gross and palpable inequality. Even if it is maintained that the female sex is capable of shoulder­ing the additional economic burden side by side with the responsi­bilities of motherhood, which is not at all true, there is a strong probability that the interests of children, under such a social system, will suffer to such a degree as to make them materially and spiri­tually ill-equipped and ill-fitted for the duties of life. Besides, a vast army of female competitors will be thrown into the economic field with all its attendant social consequences, many of them undesir­able. Indiscriminate intermixture of men and women is sure to provide greater opportunities for sexual irregularities resulting in the weakening of family ties and a further deterioration in the social and educational condition of children arising from diminished interest in domestic life and its everyday affairs.
There are people who maintain that sexual misconduct is not of much consequence in social existence and the sexual immorality need not necessarily lead to all-round moral deterioration. This is not the view of Islam which attaches great importance to sexual purity. People who hold the former view overlook the interpenc- tration of habits in social life and the constant interaction between different aspects of social morality. It is not true, as many people imagine, that there is a separate sex morality, a separate trade morality and another political morality. All morality is, a single, unified whole with its manifold aspects which interact'with and interpenetrate each other. A man of loose conduct may not be initially dishonest in politics or commerce. But his habits and mode of life as shaped, by his sexual conduct are bound, sooner or later, to affect his outlook and behaviour in other spheres of acti­vity. Morality is really the product of one's way of life. If you adopt a wrong way of life, if you fall a victim to sexual lust/ economic greed or love of political power, you cannot but trespass, in one way or the other; on the rights of others in order to satisfy your inordinate desires. It is just possible that a man who is guilty of sexual misconduct, once or twice in his early life, or without deliberately planning sexual enjoyment, falls off and on a victim to sexual temptation, may otherwise maintain his moral purity. But there is no guarantee that he who succumbs to temptation once will not be dragged by his weakness on the road to repeated and permanent misbehaviour. One act of sin leads^easily to an­other,just as one act of virtue prepares the way for further virtu­ous behaviour. It is the peculiar nature of moral acts that they set in a train of reactions on the agent which makes it easier for him to repeat his conduct and predispose him towards similar acts. Those who desire to condone sexual irregularities have really no idea of the wide ramifications of sex in everyday life. A man of loose sexual morality cannot be expected to devote the i same care and attention to his wife and children as another whose sex mora­lity remains unvitiated. He has to spend more and more on his pleasures and the ever-increasing demands of his paramours. To that extent he is likely to injure the economic rights of his wife and children. If he still remains just to his family and attempts to give his wife and children their due, he will be forced to adopt un­desirable and unlawful methods for adding to his income in order to meet the growing expenditure caused by his extra-marital sexual relations. This means that he has avoided injustice to his family by doing injustice to society. This is particularly true of men with limited incomes who form the vast majority of population in every country. It may be said that the-rich can afford to indulge in sexual irregularities without causing economic injustice. But this is not
true. All moral diseases are contagious. People in the lower strata of society often follow the social pattern set by the upper classes. If the higher classes in a nation are morally corrupt and sexually immoral, the whole nation becomes corrupted sooner or later. All these facts are overlooked by people who look upon sexual mis­conduct as a mere foible which should not call forth more than ordinary condemnation. Islam is right in unreservedly and severely condemning sexual misbehaviour and taking precautionary mea­sures against its general prevalence. These measures certainly entail a few restrictions on men and women but they are necessary for the moral, sexual and physical health of the community. It is true, of course, that when once the-'moral outlook of an individual, male or female, has become spoiled, no amount of restrictions can prevent him or her from committing sexual immorality. But this is a matter which concerns moral and religious education and the moulding of beliefs. Islam has not ignored this vital aspect of the matter. It lays greater emphasis on moral and spiritual reforma­tion than on legal or preventive measures. But this does not mean that the legal and social aspects of the matter arc of no conse­quence and the preventive measures taken by Islam are necessary. A government does not abolish its laws about theft, robbery, for­gery or blackmarketing on the ground that, unless the moral out­look of the community improves, these laws by themselves are insufficient to hold in check the miscreants. A healthy society makes simultaneous use of moral and legal sanctions to maintain its standards of integrity. Both are equally necessary, but the primary importance must be attached to moral sanctions. It is the moral and spiritual outlook of individuals that determines their social conduct and this, again, is the product of their educational environment. Without maintaining that the preventive and precau­tionary measures taken by Islam to regulate sex morality are neces­sary, we do hold that the task of moral and spiritual reformation is more primary and fundamental.
What the Muslim women in Pakistan and other Muslim countries lack is not any rights but the consciousness of their rights. They are depressed, they are ignorant and they have been placed under many fetters of custom and artificial tradition not sanctioned by Islam. If they receive proper Islamic education, become conscious of their rights as well as their duties, they can easily break their chains. At present being ignorant of Islamic teachings, they think that the traditions and customs they have been forced to observe are part of Islamic teachings. Education—proper education—is their dire and essential need. But education for the majority of women in Pakistan involves economic considerations. The com­mon women cannot be educated unless there is a general economic uplift and every woman is made secure against the daily cares and anxieties of life. Pakistani women who have come forward as champions of sex equality and demand equal rights with men would do well to bear this aspect of the matter in mind. To ima­gine that you can raise the social status of women in Pakistan and release them from the fetters of artificial customs and traditions without making education so cheap as to enable every member of the female sex to enjoy access to educational institutions is to live in a dreamland. Unless the champions of female liberty undertake an organised effort to make female education cheaper and more widespread so as to bring its benefits within easy reach of the poorest woman, the common people will continue to doubt their sincerity. What the common mind feels at present is that the women's movement in Pakistan does not spring from genuine al­truistic motives or from a real desire for social and national refor­mation but from a desire to throw off all restraints, some of which are necessary and salutary, in order that a few fortunate women may be able to enjoy a life of luxurious self-indulgence without in­viting social opprobrium. More and more of fashion, more and more of luxury, distinguishes those of our women who have stepp­ed out into the threshold of public life and demand equality of rights with men. Material acquisitiveness and pleasure-seeking, not service and social work, seem to be their motto. Their insistence on teaching fashionable arts like music and dancing to the exclusion of useful domestic arts and religious or political instruction is disliked by the people in general. As leaders of the feminine movement, it was their duty to teach by instruction and example the virtues of plain living, economy, frugality, and national self-sacrifice for wider social objectives. Proper and scientific education of children and observance of hygienic principles in domestic life, not dancing and fashionable arts, should have been the object of their attention. If they are really sincere in their desire to raise the social status of women in Pakistan, let them devote themselves to those fundamen­tal requirements. Let them demand and press for social security
measures for women designed to ensure free education for the poorest members of their sex; then and then alone shall they be held in true respect and become truly representative of the common, yrge for social and educational uplift.


Index
'Abdal-Dar, 107
'Abdullah B.'Umar, 47, 51, 56, 65,
73,105
'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, 15, 72, 73, 105 'Abdual-Ja'far,47 Abu Ayyub\Ansari, 86 Abu Dawud, 29, 47, 49, 51, 67, "69, 70,
86, 104, 108, 143. Abu Hanifah, 49, 50, 72, 73, 105 Abu Hurairah, 15, 29, 49,. 56, 70 Abu Sanabil Ba'kak, 107 Abu Yusuf, 72,105 Adams, Dr., 121 Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, 45,49, 64, 69,71,
105
Ahmad, Imam, 49 Alaska, 135, 136 Alcoholism, 94 Alexander, 95 'AM* 45, 72, 73, 86 'Alqamah b. Mas'ud, 47 Alusi, 103 Amazon, 131,132 America, 4, 29, 30, 46, 52, 62 American Congress, 135 'Amir Ibn Rabi'ah. 47 'Amr bin 'Aas, 87 Anas b. Malik, 15, 32, 99 AnMr, 18, 49, 87,104 'Aqabah b.'Amir, 87 'Arabia,?, 14,17,110,126
Arabs, 15, 142
Asma' bint Abu Bakr, 86,105 Astel-Dien, 83 'Ata', 105, 108 Auza'i, 105
'Ayeshah, 17, 50, 51, 56,57,69,86, 99, 104,105, 106, 116, 142,146
Badr, bat tie of, 107
Bahz b. Hakim, 57
Baihaqi, 32
Banu Fazara, 47
Barwa'ah Ibn Wasiq, 47
Beard, Mary. R. 1, 22, 30, 52
Bentham, 3
Biological Tragedy of Women, 79
Blackstone, 29, 30, 46
Blonsky, 37
Bolshevik Revolution, 5
Bolsheviks, 37, 43
Bon, Dr. Le, 112
British Feminists, 118
Browning, Robert, 24
Bryce, Lord, 60
Bryn Mawr report, 84
Bukhari, 15, 32. 50, 51, 58, 99, 108
Carrel, Dr. Alexis, 21 Castellani, Maria, 6 Charle magne, 60, 111 j^esser, Elizabeth, 123n
OPT
Christ, 60, 98
Christianity, 32, 44, 46, 59, 71
Code Civil des Francois, 62
Communism, 2,5, 37
Communists, 5
Cope, Dr. Ill
Curie, Madame, 24
Dahhak, 105 Daraqutni, 86 Darvies, Miss Emil, 119 Dell, Floyd, 42 Dumas, Alexander, 3 Dunlop, Professor, 112, 147
Ehrenfels, Christian, Von, 112
Elliot, George, 24
Eliis, Dr. Havelock, 24, 25, 26, 35, 37,
38, 39, 78, 80,81,82,83,111,113,
126,127,129,138 England, 3, 29, 35, 36, 46, 61, 62, 95,
110,118,119 Esdon, Dr. Cryn, 123 Europe, 2, 29, 30, 61 Ewart, 127
Fadl. (Ibn'Abbas), 106
Failure of Marriage in Western Civili­sation, the, 42
Fascism, 2
Path at-Bari, 67
Fath-al-Bayan, 104
Fatimah, 99
Feminine and Sex Education, 124
Feminism, 27n
Feudalism, 2
Finland, 135,136
Ford,115
Fourth Moscow City Conference, 5
France, 3, 61, 62, 112, 129
Future of Marriage in Western Civili­sation, The, 28, 32, 34, 42, 81, 111, 114n, 130
Germany, 6, 35, 129 Gina, Dr. Lambrose, 27 Goebbels, 6
INDEX
Great war, 1914, 3 Greece, 95
Habibah bint Sahil, 67
Haire, Dr. Norman, 112
Hajj, 106
Hamilton, Dr., 114
Hamzah b. Abu Usaid Ansari, 108
Hanafi School, 76
Hanbali School, 74
Hanson, Parker, 13, 132, 133, 134,
137
Herndon, William Lewis, 132 Hinduism, 59 Hinton James, 111 Hirth, George, 115 Hitler, Adolf, 6 Hollywood, 101 Hottentots, 91 Howards, 121,122 Hymen, 26 Hypatia, 122
Ibadah b. Samit, 99, 100
Ibn 'Abbas, 15, 49, 50, 51, 64, 73, 103,
105,106
Ibn Hazm, 105, 106 Ibn Kathir, 105 Ibn Majah, 47, 51 , 67, 69, 92 Ibn Mas'ud, see 'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud. Jbn tamiyyah, 64 Ibn 'Umar, see 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar Ibrahim Nakha'i, 105 Iceland, 133, 134 'Idal-Fitr, 144 Ideal Marriage, 89, 90, 91 Ikramah, 105 Imran, 18 Indians, 131 Industrial Revolution, 3 Iraq, 144
Islam, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, \7, 18, 20, 28^ 29. 30, 33, 34, 38, 44, 45, 46, 4\ 4». 49, 50, 52, 55, 58, 59, 63, 64, 67, W, 71, 72, 76, 78, 85, 88, 89, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106,
INttttt
107, 108, 110, 118, 124, 125,126, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148,149, 151
Italian Women, Past and Present, 6
Itlay, 6
Jabir, 49, 69
Jacques, 4
Jamilah bint Abi Sahul, 67
Jews, 111, 165
Judaism, 71
Ka'bah, 108 Kanzal'Vmmat,lS,57 Kashshaf, 90 Khansa' bin Khazam, 69 Khasam (Trib), 106 Kische, 26, 34, 115 Kitab al Nikah, 23, 50 Kitab al-Taharat, 18 Knealy, Dr., 124 Kroft Ebing, von. 34 Krupskaya, 5 Kufah, 45
Legal Rights, Liabilities and Duties of
Women, The, 30, 46 Lelia, 4
Lenin, V.I., 5, 37 Lewis, J.H., 24 Life and Sex, 127 London, 101
Ludovici, M. Anthony, 95 Lyons, 83
Macgregor, Colonel, 113
Madeira, 132
Majority Report of the Royal Commi­ssion (1909), 89
Male and Female, 21, 40, 59, 78,81, 130
Malik, Imam, 49, 50, 67, 71, 74,75, 91, 105
Maliki Law, 73
Malthus, 130
Malthusianism, 130
Malthusian Law, 130
157
Man and Women, 24, 80
Mansfield, Professor, 30", 46
Man, the unknown, 21
Maq'al b. Sinan, 68
Mary. 18
Mead, Margaret, 21, 40, 78, 81,84,
130
Miesel-Hess, Dr., 115 Mill John Stuart, 3 Mixed School, The Modern Family,
The. 34 Moses, 18 Mu'awiyah, 100 Mughirah b. Shu'bah, 49,51 Al-Muhalla, 105 Muhammad Ali, 89,116 Muslim, Imam, 18 Muslims, 46, 50, 52, 56, 71,85,97,
100,116,141, 144, 145, 146 Musse, Alfred, 4 Mussolini, 7 Muwatta, 70, 91 Muzinah, 105
Nail ol-Autar, 45, 47, 56
Napoleon, 61
Naquet, Alfred, 3
Nasa'i, 47,51, 69, 70
Nature oj"woman, 123
Nazis, 6
Neo-Malthusian movement, 3
New Testament, 110
New World Emerging, 131,135
New York, 101
Nikah-i-Istibzah, 142
Nite, 132
Nimkoff, Dr., 42
Nineteenth Century and After, The, 122
North Corolina, 61
Norway, 135
Nuremburg, 6
On Life and Sex, 37n, 82, 83 On Love, 34 Owen, Robert, 3
Pakistan, 145,148,151,153
158
Palo Alto, 23 Persia, 113
Petain, Marshall, 129
Pharaoh, 18
Plato, 82
Prophet (of/Islam) 10,14, 15, 16,17, 18, 29, 32,/47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73,

75, 86,
97, 98, 99,
105,106,
143, 144,
146,148 otestants,
logy of Education
Repubi
Rogge-J
Ruh al. ^a'ni, 103, 155
Ruskin, 3 \
Russel, Bertfand, 37
Russel, Mrs, Dora, 122
Russia, 5, 4, 3, Soviets 39, 42
Russians, 135 \
Russian Soviet Revolution, 6
Sahih XBukhari) 23
SahiE'(Muslim) 26
Sa'ad b. Khaulah, 107
Sa'kd, 105
Sallivan, Dr. 94
Sand George, 3
Sanger, Margaret, 126
Sanda, 91,103, Schwarz, Oswald, 95
Second World War, 4
Sexual Life of Our Time, 26n
Sexual life of Woman, 26n
Sexual Question, 26n
Savique, Hume de, 119
Shafi'i, Imam, 45. 49, 50, 71.105
Shafi'i School, 74
Shaukani, 47
Shaw, Bernard, 113
Smith, Phillip, 133
Soul of Woman, 27
South Carolina, 60, 61
Southern, 112
Spain, 6
Stanford University, 23
Stefansson, 130
Stendhal, 34 j
Stocker, Helene, 37 i
Studies in History and Jurisprudence,
60
Subiyah Aslaniyah, 107 Subjection of Woman, 3 Sufyan, Thauri, 45 Sweden, 135, 136 Syria,\l 44
Tagore, R^bindranath, 122
TayloJ, Dr.\23 (
b bin Qais, 67, 68
dhi/JS, 4J7, 50, 56, 87, 91, 92 ' Jd, 94
, battjeof, 99,116, 146 int Ruqaiqah, 88 Umn J)y#yya Nasibah, 99,144 Umm SaW 99, 146 'Umar, 45/47, 50, 57, 64, 73, 74, 75,
91,103,143,144 / 'Umar b. Abi SaJamah.JO United States, \ 43, 60, 61,63,82,
133
'Uthman, 73, 76 'Uthman bin Maz'un, 51
Velde, van de, 8l789, 90, 91,92
Vamilon, 79
Vindications of the Rights of Women,
A, 3 Vitray, 83

INDEX
Wcdga, Hedwig. 34 Weith Kondsen, 27 Westermark, Dr.. 32, 34, 35, 36,42n,
43,62,83n,112,113,,114,130 Western Asia, 211
What do We Mean by Education, 121 Whether Women, 27,124 Witebx, Dr., 62 Wilton^Professor, 120, 121 Wings, Dr., 26 Wollstencraft, Mary, 3
159
Woman as Force in History, 1, 22,30,
52
Women, Marriage, Motherhood, 123 Woman and Society, 5 Women, a Vindication, 95 World Review, 94
Year Book of Education, 119 Zelkin, Klara, 5


-------------------------- EQUALITY OR IDENTICELNESS

MUHAMMAD MASUM

The basic point which is used in the arguments regarding women’s equal rights is that the necessary result of men and women’s sharing in human dignity and honor is that their rights should be the same identical. Now, the thing on which, philosophically speaking, we should put our finger is to determine exactly what is the necessary result of man and woman’s sharing in human dignity. Is the necessary conclusion that each of them should have rights equivalent to the other, so that there should be no privilege or preference in favor of either of them, or it is necessary that the rights of man and woman, besides having equivalence and parity, should also be exactly the same, and that there should be no division whatsoever of work and duty. No doubt the sharing of man and woman in human dignity and their equality as human beings demands that their having equal human rights, but how can there be identicalness of rights?
If we can being to put aside the imitation and blind following of western philosophy, and allow ourselves to think and ponder over the philosophical ideas and opinions which have come to us from them, we must see firstly whether identicalness of rights is or is not necessary for equality of rights. Equality is different from identicalness. Equality means parity and equitableness, and identicalness means that they are exactly the same. It is possible that a father distributes his wealth equally and equitably among his sons but he may not distribute it identically. For example, it is possible that a father has different kinds of wealth: he may own a commercial firm, some agricultural land and also some real estate: but, due to his having emanate his sons and found different talents among them, for example, he may have found that one of them had a gift for commercial affairs, and that the second had ability on agriculture and the third had the capability to manage real estate. When he comes to distribute his wealth amongst his sons in his life time, bearing in mind that he must give his sons in terms of the value of the property and that there should be neither preference nor discrimination, he bequeaths his wealth according to the talents which he has found in them.
Quantity is different from quality. Equality is different from being exactly the same. What is certain is that Islam has not considered there to be identicalness or exact similarity of rights between men and women, but it has never believed in preference and discrimination in favor of men as opposite to women. Islam has also observed the principle of equality between men and women. Islam is not against the equality of men and women, but it does not agree with the identicalness of their rights.
The words “equality” and “egality” have earned a kind of sanctity because they embrace the meaning of equivalence and absence of discrimination. This words are attractive and draw respect from listeners, especially when these words are joined to the word” rights”.

“Equality of rights” how beautiful and sacred in this combinations of words! Can there be anyone with a conscience and innate moral sense, does not revere this two words?
But why is it that we who were ones the standard bearers to of knowledge, philosophy and logic, have come to such a position that others want to impose their opinions on us corning the identicalness of the rights of men and women in sacred name of equality of rights.
It is exactly like someone who wants to sell boiled beetroots and sells them pears.
What is certain is that Islam has not granted the same rights to men and women in everything, in the same way as it has not imposed the same duties and punishment on both of them on all occasions. However is the sum total of the rights that have been stabilized for women less in value then the rights that have been granted to men? Certainly not, as we shall proof.

There a second question arises. Why has Islam granted dissimilar right men and women in certain instance? Why did it not allow the same rights for both of them would it not have been better for the rights of men and women to have been both equal and identical, or is it preferable that the rights should be only equal bout not the same? To study this point thoroughly, it is necessary what we should discuss it in three parts.

1. The view of Islam concerning the human status of woman from the point of view of certain.
2. What is the reason of the difference which exists in the creation of man and woman? Is this difference the cause of their being dissimilates in their natural rights, or not?
3. The basic philosophy behind the difference that exist in Islamic law for men and women, which, in certain respects, place them in different positions, are these philosophical reasons still justifiable and do they still hold good or not?
That which has been kept in view in Islam is that women and men, on the basis of the very fact that one is woman and the other is a man are not identical with each other in many respects. The world is not exactly alike for both of them, and their natures and disposition were not intended to be tea same. Eventually this requires that in very many rights, duties and punishments they should not have an identical placing. In the western world they are now attempting to create uniformity and identicalness in laws, regulations, rights and functions between women and men, while ignoring the innate and natural differences. It is here that the differences between the outlook of Islam and that of westerns systems are to be found. Thus the dispute between , on the one hand, those section of the people who supports Islamic rights and, and on the other hand, those who support western systems is about the identicalness and exact similarity of the rights of men and women and about equality of rights. “Equality of rights” is a counterfeit label which the followers of the west have stuck on as a souvenir of the west.

It must be completely understood that we claim that justice and the natural and human rights of man and woman call for dissimilarity in certain rights. Thus, our discussion I has a completely philosophical orientation: it is linked to the philosophy of rights and linked with a principle which is called the principle of justice, which is one of the vital pillars of Islamic theory and jurisprudence. The principle of justice is the same fundamental principle which brought into existence the rule of the harmony of reason and religious law in Islam. It means that according to Islamic jurisprudence – if it can be established that justice demands that a particular precept should be such and such and not some thing else, then if it is something else it will be an iniquity and against justice; thus we are obligated to say that the ruling of religious law is what reason and justice tell us it should be. SITY
.

Members, One of Another: Gender Equality and Justice in Islam"
By Riffat HassanDepartment of Religious StudiesUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky


IntroductionWhat I will say may surprise both Muslims who "know" women's place andnon-Muslims who "know" what Islam means for women. It is this: I am aMuslim, a theologian, and a women's rights activist, and while I amcritical in a number of ways of the life that most Muslim societies offerto women, twenty years of theological study, as well as my own deepestfaith, convince me that in real Islam, the Islam of the Qur'an, women andmen are equals. Liberating ideas lie at the heart of most enduringfaiths, and Islam shares in these. Two themes in particular strike me asbeing of the highest importance. The first is the fundamental equality ofhumans before God. The other is religion's revolutionary aim of humanliberation. From religion should come freedom to seek understanding ofthe will of God and life's purpose, and freedom to honor God's creationthrough self-development and striving toward God's ends.

Unfortunately, most Muslim societies also mirror a fault that has beennoted by feminist theologians in cultures shaped by other religions: thegap between rhetoric of equality and the reality of profound inequalitybetween the lives of women and men. While Muslim women continuously hearthe refrain that Islam has given women more rights than any otherreligious tradition, they continue to be subjected to grossly unequaltreatment.
Most Muslims -- women and men -- consider it self-evident that men aresuperior to women. Going further, they justify many manifestations ofinequality as inherent in Islam. In fact, women are regarded in a numberof contemporary Muslim societies as less than fully human because it iswidely believed that in some contexts (such as inheritance or witnessingto contracts), one man is equal to two women. Most Muslim females,learning their culture's assumptions even before they learn language, anddenied the opportunity to become educated, also internalize this belief.
The dominant, patriarchal interpretations of Islam have fostered the mythof women's inferiority in several ways. They have used sayings attributedto the Prophet Muhammad (including disputed sayings) to undermine theintent and teachings of the Qur'an, which Muslims regard as the Word ofGod. They have taken Qur'anic verses out of context and read themliterally, ignoring the fact that the Qur'an often uses symbolic languageto portray deep truths. And they have failed to account for theoverriding ethical values of the Qur'an, which stresses that human beings-- women as well as men -- have been designated to be God's "khalifah"(vicegerent) on earth and to establish a social order characterized byjustice and compassion.
A refutation of the whole mosaic of arguments for women's lesser placewould fill a book. It might require a second book to explicate,proactively, the Qur'an's vision of women's equality with men and what itmight mean in day-to-day life. For now, my hope here is simply to shakefalse certainties about women in Islam and stimulate additional study forthe sake of empowering Muslim women.
The central question is whether, according to normative Islam, women andmen are equal or unequal. It is clear to me that, according to theperspective of the Qur'an, women and men are equal, and that women areentitled to an equal opportunity along with men for the actualization oftheir human potentialities. In fact, because of its protective attitudetoward all downtrodden and oppressed classes, the Qur'an is particularlyconcerned about safeguarding the rights of women, and much Qur'aniclegislation is designed to ensure that women are treated with justice inthe home and in society.
Islam Seeks LiberationThe Qur'an holds before us a sublime vision of our human potential, ourdestiny, and our relationship with God. Its vision of human destiny isapparent in the exalted proclamation: "Towards God is thy limit" [Surah53:An- Najm:42]. With this attitude, the Qur'an seeks to liberate allpersons so that we may realize our potential fully. If all Muslims wereto pursue the values of the Qur'an, they would create a Paradise ofjustice and peace on earth.
The means and ends of human liberation are foundational themes of theQur'an: justice and the duty to strive for it, compassion for all things,the need to strive continuously for the cause of God ("jihad fi sabilAllah"). The most important form of "jihad" for contemporary Muslims is"ijtihad," or the exercise of rational judgment to understand theessential message of the Qur'an and to apply it to particularcircumstances.

Central to this message is an ethic of responsibility forour lives, for nature, and for the elimination of all inequities andinjustices from human society. According to the Qur'an, justice is aprecondition for peace: Without justice -- between men and women, asbetween classes and between nations -- there can be no peace in theworld.
Indeed, a large part of the Qur'an's concern is to free human beings fromthe chains that bind them -- above all, authoritarianism and the blindfollowing of tradition. "Let there be no compulsion in religion," saysthe Qur'an [Surah 2:Al-Baqarah:256]. God tells the Prophet Muhammad, "Wemade thee not one to watch over [others'] doings, nor art thou set overthem to dispose of their affairs" [Surah 6:Al-An'am:107]. The greatestguarantee of personal freedom lies in the Qur'anic decrees that no onebut God can limit human freedom [Surah 42:Ash-Shura:21] and that"Judgment is Allah's alone" [Surah 12:Yusuf:40]. As the eminent juristKhalid M. Ishaque pointed out, "The Qur'an gives to responsible dissentthe status of a fundamental right." (1)
Our right to freedom includes the freedom to tell the truth, as one seesit. Without this, other freedoms are a charade and a just society isimpossible. According to the Qur'an, truth is one of God's most importantattributes, and the Qur'an emphasizes that standing up for the truth is aright and a responsibility that no Muslim may disclaim, no matter howhard the truth may be to tell [Surah 4:An-Nisa':135]. Further, the Qur'anforbids others to harm those who testify to the truth [Surah2:Al-Baqarah:282].
The right to freedom of thought and _expression was exercised by Muslimsin the early centuries of Islam and was pivotal in the creation of anIslamic civilization characterized by outstanding achievements in diversefields of knowledge. The early Muslims celebrated cultural diversity andengaged in rigorous intellectual discussion. Here, it is apt to mentionWilfred Cantwell Smith's comment that, whereas the original Muslimsbelieved in God, modern Muslims believe in Islam. (2)
Centered in God and self-critical, the original Muslims believed thatalthough God had given them the Qur'an and the Prophet had exemplifiedits teachings, it was their responsibility to implement its message inthe "Islamic" societies that they were creating. These Muslims read theQur'an as an "open," rather than a "closed," text and strove continuallyto understand its deeper meaning.

This intellectual striving ("ijtihad") -- which Allama Muhammad Iqbal,
poet-philosopher of Pakistan, calls "the principle of movement" in
history (3) -- made the Muslims of the first three centuries dynamic and
creative peoples who paved the way for the European Renaissance.
It is a profound tragedy and irony that today's Muslims, in largenumbers, regard Islam in monolithic terms and regard the "shari'ah" (thecode regulating all aspects of a Muslim's life) as fixed. In much of thecontemporary Muslim world, we see the substitution of traditionalism forthe exercise of ijtihad -- even a denial of the right of ijtihad.
To me, being a Muslim means renewing the cry of the modernists, "Back tothe Qur'an and forward with ijtihad." In the same vein, it means actingon these words of Iqbal: "The teaching of the Qur'an that life is aprocess of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guidedbut unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted tosolve its own problems." (4) These are useful guidelines today for theliberation of all Muslims, especially women, from traditionalauthoritarianism.
Human Rights in the Qur'an The Qur'an strongly guarantees all fundamental human rights, withoutreserving them to men alone. These rights are so deeply rooted in ourhumanness that their denial or violation is tantamount to a negation ordegradation of that which makes us human. These rights came intoexistence with us, so that we might actualize our human potential. Theserights not only provide us with the opportunity to develop all of ourinner resources, but they also hold before us a vision of what God wouldlike us to be, what God deems to be worth striving for. The renunciationof a God-given right would be no more virtuous than the refusal toutilize a God-given talent.
The first and most basic right emphasized by the Qur'an is the right tobe regarded in a way that reflects the sanctity and absolute value ofeach human life. Each person has the right not only to life but also torespect, not by virtue of being a man or a woman, but by virtue of beinga human being. "Verily," states the Qur'an, "we have honored every humanbeing" [Surah 17:Al-Isra':70]. Human beings are deemed worthy of esteembecause, of all creation, they alone chose to accept the "trust" offreedom of the will (Surah 33:Al-Ahzab:72). Human beings can exercisefreedom of the will because they possess the rational faculty, which iswhat distinguishes them from all other creatures (Surah 2:Al-Baqarah:30-34). Although human beings can become "the lowest of the low," the Qur'an
declares that they have been made "in the best of moulds"
(Surah 95:At-Tin:4-6), having the ability to think, to have knowledge of
right and wrong, to do the good and to avoid the evil. Thus, on account
of the promise which is contained in being human, namely, thepotential to be God's vicegerent on earth, the humanness of all humanbeings is to be respected and considered an end in itself.
Flowing from this primary right is the right to be treated with justiceand equity. The Qur'an puts great emphasis on the right to seek justiceand the duty to do justice. Justice encompasses both the concept that allare equal and recognition of the need to help equalize those sufferingfrom a deficiency or loss.
Yet justice is not absolute equality of treatment, since human beings arenot equal as far as their human potential or their human situation isconcerned. While each person's humanness commands respect, the Qur'analso establishes the right to recognition of individual merit. Meritdepends not on gender or any other characteristic, but only onrighteousness. Righteousness consists of "just belief" plus "justaction," including faith, prayer, wealth- sharing, equitable andcompassionate behavior, and patience in the face of hardship ordifficulty.
Of importance to women in the Muslim world today is the Qur'anic ideathat justice takes into account the unequal conditions of differentgroups of people. This idea stems from the Qur'anic ideal of community,or "ummah," a word deriving from the root "umm," meaning mother. Like agood mother with her children, the good community cares about thewell-being of all its members, offering particular support to thedowntrodden, oppressed, and "weak" classes. This includes women, slaves,orphans, the poor and infirm, and minorities.
As discussed earlier, another fundamental right is the right to be freeof traditionalism and authoritarianism. Instrumental here is the right toseek knowledge, which the Qur'an emphasizes perhaps more than any otherright. Acquiring knowledge is a prerequisite for evaluating theconditions of life and working toward the creation of a just world.
Denied knowledge, Muslim women are denied justice.
Additionally, with great implications for the status of Muslim women,human beings possess the right to work, to earn, and to own property.This right is not the monopoly of men. In Islam, everything belongs toGod, not to any person, and so every human being has the right to a meansof living. Given the Qur'an's recognition of women as persons in theirown right and not as adjuncts to men, the right to earn a living is ofgreat importance to women, and the Qur'an entitles both women and men tothe fruits of their labors.
Human beings also have the right to develop their aesthetic sensibilitiesand the right not only to survive but to thrive, to enjoy "the goodlife." This requires self-actualization or development, which is notpossible without social justice. Not only an end in themselves, women'srights are a basic component of social justice and a fundamental aspectof creating a just society, in which all people can actualize theirGod-given potential.
It is often said that rights entail responsibility, meaning theresponsibility not to use rights to justify destructive behavior. Rightsalso entail another kind of responsibility: the duty not to neglect them.Rights given to us by God ought to be exercised, since everything thatGod does is for "a just purpose," as pointed out by a number of Qur'anicverses.
In short, as beings in a covenantal relationship with God, we must striveto secure and guard the rights which God has given us and which,therefore, cannot be revoked by any temporal authority.
Sexism Is Not IslamGiven the human rights established by the Qur'an, how is it that Muslimwomen are among the most voiceless and powerless "minorities" in theworld? One answer is that women's oppression -- including their"protection" -- in the name of Islam is based on pre-Qur'anic,non-Qur'anic theological assumptions and on patriarchal impulsescamouflaged in the language of popular piety. It also consists of thesimple fear of change.
The belief that women are inferior to men derives, in my judgment, fromthree fundamental theological assumptions or ideas that have playedpivotal roles not only in the Islamic, but also in the Christian andJewish, tradition. These three assumptions are: 1) God's primary creation is man (Adam), since woman (Eve) is believed tohave been created from man's rib and is, therefore, ontologicallyderivative and secondary. This idea has been the most damaging to womenthroughout history, for if it is believed that man and woman were createdunequal by God, then they cannot become equal essentially, at asubsequent time. 2) Woman (Eve) was the primary agent of "man's Fall," or man's expulsionfrom paradise. With enormous implications for women's sexuality, thisstory undergirds the myth of feminine evil. Consequently, women have beenregarded as "the devil's gateway" -- a phrase adopted from the earlyChristian Tertullian -- and treated with hatred, suspicion, and contempt.3) Woman was created not only from man, but for man. Her existence,therefore, is instrumental and not of fundamental importance.
Common though these assumptions are, a correct reading of Qur'an does notsupport them. The idea that Eve was created second, and is derivative --which is found in the creation story in Genesis 2 -- is not found in theQur'an. In its thirty or so passages about human creation, the Qur'analways speaks of the creation of humanity as a whole ("an-nas,""al-insan," "al-bashar"). The term "adam" (borrowed from Hebrew, in which"adam" derives from "adamah," meaning "earth") occurs twenty-five timesin the Qur'an. In twenty-one instances, it refers not to a specificperson but to human beings when they reach the stage of moral autonomyand become capable of being God's vicegerents on earth. In the Qur'an,"Adam" represents humanity, not just a male person. It is important tonote that there is no "Eve" in the Qur'an.
According to the Qur'an, God created woman and man simultaneously, oflike substance, and in like manner. Several verses state that God createdman and women from a single life-cell or being. Both man and women havemale and female components [Surah 49:Al-Hujurat:13], and both togetherform the human species. It is a clear teaching of the Qur'an that man andwoman are equal in the sight of God, and the Qur'an uses both feminineand masculine terms and imagery to describe the creation of humanity froma single source.
As for the second assumption, the Qur'an does not state that Eve temptedand deceived Adam, causing his "Fall" and expulsion from paradise; asnoted, Eve is not even mentioned by name in the Qur'anic text. In Islam,the story of humanity's first act of disobedience is not even the tale ofa "Fall." Instead, as Iqbal writes, it shows "man's rise from a primitivestate of instinctive appetite to the conscious possession of a free self,capable of doubt and disobedience." (5) God approved of this developmentof human will and therefore forgave this first transgression.
Finally, woman was not created to serve the ends of man, nor vice versa:both were created to serve God's purpose. Both are called upon equally tobe righteous, and women and men are "members" and "protectors" of eachother.
In the face of this truth about the Qur'an, how do Muslims rationalizethe commonly held theological misconceptions used to justify women'ssecondary status? The answer is, largely, through the prevalent norms ofMuslim culture, which has incorporated the many sayings attributed to theProphet Muhammad that make up the Hadith literature, a leading source ofIslamic tradition. While the Qur'an has absolute authority as God's Wordand is therefore the primary source of Islam, the Hadith literature hasbeen the lens through which the Qur'an has been interpreted through theages. Reflecting the culture of the seventh- and eighth-century Arabworld, the sayings voice the cumulative biases, against women, of theJewish, Christian, Hellenistic, and pre-Islamic Bedouin Arab traditions. To take one example, it is through the Hadith literature that the idea ofEve's creation from Adam's rib entered the Muslim world. ThroughoutIslamic history, certain "ahadith" (the plural of "hadith," a saying)have been used by patriarchal Muslim culture to undermine the aim of theQur'an to liberate women from the status of chattels and make them freeand equal to men.
As important as the Hadith literature is, controversy surrounds everyaspect of it, from the authenticity of individual sayings to theliterature as a whole. In theory, all Muslim scholars agree that theymust reject any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an. Nevertheless, theahadith invoked to justify women's secondary status not only areretained, but they enjoy overwhelming popularity among Muslims ingeneral.
The belief of most Muslims that the first woman was created from Adam'srib shows that, in practice, the Hadith literature has displaced theteaching of the Qur'an on women's creation. It is no wonder: throughoutmost of Muslim history, the sources of Islamic tradition have beeninterpreted only by Muslim men who have arrogated to themselves the taskof defining the ontological, theological, sociological, andeschatological status of Muslim women.
The challenge for contemporary Muslim theologians who uphold genderequality and justice is to analyze and refute time-honored understandingsof certain Qur'anic verses and ahadith that have been used against women.
Their task is to reinterpret these texts in the light of the cardinalIslamic belief that God is just and that God's word must reflect God'sjustice. Indeed, the Qur'an is full of verses affirming the equality ofwomen and men. I defy patriarchy's theologians to reconcile these verseswith any bias against women or even relegation of women to a sheltered --that is, inferior -- status. To wit (6): Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members one of another. [Surah 3: Al-'Imran:195]If any do deeds of righteousness, -- be they male or female -- and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them. [Surah 4:An-Nisa':124]
The Believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Apostle. On them will God pour His mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise. God hath promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to swell therein, and beautiful mansions in gardens of everlasting bliss. But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of God: that is the supreme felicity. [Surah 9:At-Tawbah:71-72]
Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him will We give a new life, a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions. [Surah 16:An-Nahl:97]
For Muslim men and women, -- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who engage much in God's praise, -- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward. [Surah 23:Al-Mu'minum:35]
Men and women are created as equal creatures of a universal, just, and merciful God whose pleasure is that they live in harmony and in righteousness, together.Manifestations of InequalityDenying women the right to interpret the Qur'an and the other sources ofIslam, patriarchal authorities have distorted the truth of Islam almostbeyond recognition. They have made Islam a means of keeping women inbondage, physically and spiritually. The most gross violation of humanrights in Muslim societies is that of the rights of women, who aredeprived of the freedom to be fully human.
Female children are discriminated against from the moment of birth. Manygirls are married when they are still minors, although marriage in Islamis a contract and presupposes that the contracting parties are bothconsenting...
Ironically, while the Qur'an often notes women's rights in marriage, theculture regards a husband as his wife's gateway to heaven or hell. Thisis not only tragic, but also ironic, as Islam rejects the idea of anyintermediary between a believer and the Creator.
While Islam may have abolished female infanticide, "honor killings" ofwomen by their husbands remain common in certain Muslim countries. Although the Qur'an presents the idea of "no-fault" divorce and speaks ofdivorce nonjudgmentally, Muslim societies make divorce legally andsocially hard on women. One means is the denial to mothers of custody oftheir children.
Similarly disempowering to women are pseudo-Islamic practices with regardto inheritance. The Qur'an allowed women to inherit wealth and receivesimilar gifts, but Muslim societies have discouraged gifts to women andfavored the circulation of wealth among men.
Modernity has not brought justice to most Muslim women. Since the 1970s,several countries have enacted laws in the name of "Islamization" thatreduce women's status, mathematically, to less than full humanity. Suchoppression of women serves to reinforce cultural identity and expressrejection of Western corruption. Controlling women is a proxy forcontrolling sexuality, licentiousness, and the family structure in whichpatriarchy is invested. Keeping women at home, subservient and dependent,is both means and end.
More intensely than many other societies, Muslim communities tend todivide the world into private (women's) and public (men's) spheres. Thisstructure segregates the sexes. Women must wear veils [niqaab] to make themselves "faceless" in public because women's intrusion into male space
might disrupt, if not destroy, the fundamental order of things.
Segregation and enforced veiling -- together, the tradition of the"curtain" -- exemplify both the twisting of Qur'anic ideas and theadoption of pre-Islamic traditions oppressing women. For instance, thepurpose of the Qur'anic statements about women's dress and conduct was toenable women to transact business in the public realm, free from sexualharassment or molestation. Zealous and patriarchal Muslims, however,place form over substance. In the name of protecting women's chastity(what about men's chastity?) women are veiled and even confined to theirhomes -- at the expense of their freedom and ability to engage in gainfulwork or other activity in the public sphere. This grossly distorts theQur'anic directive, in which confinement was not the norm for chastewomen, but the punishment for unchaste ones....Pursuing JusticeThe Qur'an not only offers women justice, but requires all Muslims toseek justice, including their own rights. It is not enough merely toappreciate one's rights in theory. Muslims are called upon, in oppressiveconditions, to strive to make possible the exercise of the rights givenby God.
Male-centered and male-dominated Muslim societies assert, glibly andtirelessly, that Islam has given women more rights than any otherreligion. Meanwhile, they keep women in physical, mental, and emotionalconfinement, depriving them of the opportunity to actualize their humanpotential.

A deeply symbolic and pragmatically devastating case in pointis that, while literacy rates are low in many Muslim countries, literacyrates of Muslim women -- especially in the rural areas where most of theMuslim people live -- are among the lowest in the world.
It is only because the masses of Muslim women are steeped in poverty andilliteracy that oppressive ideas have been accepted and tolerated for solong. Until recent times, the vast majority of Muslim women have remainedwholly or largely unaware of their "Islamic" (in an ideal sense) rights.Even privileged, educated Muslim women -- like women of other religioustraditions -- have been denied systematically the opportunity to acquirethe critical tools for examining the roots of their tradition anddiscovering how they became so disadvantaged. Their exclusion disablestheir response.
The negative ideas about women that prevail in Muslim societies arerooted in certain theological ideas. Until we demolish the theologicalfoundations of Muslim culture's misogynistic and androcentric tendencies,Muslim women will suffer discrimination despite statistical improvementsin education, employment, and political rights. Islamic tradition willremain rigidly patriarchal until we break the chains of ignorance inwhich women are shackled.
Ultimately, it will be up to Muslim women, once educated about Islam andtheir rights, to articulate in a proactive fashion the meaning of theirlives, their selves. Reacting against the Western model of liberation nolonger suffices. What is required is a positive formulation of their owngoals and objectives, individually and collectively.
Although prevailing conditions seem to be far from desirable, I believestrongly that there is hope for the future. There are indications that anincreasing number of Muslims are, in fact, returning to the Qur'an andattempting to apply its teachings to reform Muslim practices. With theefforts of women and human rights activists who are striving to actualizethe liberating vision of the Qur'an -- and with the help of God -- moreand more Muslim women will become educated and aware. As this happens,they will reject the myths and arguments by which religious hierarchsimprison their bodies, hearts, minds, and souls. Then they will grow intowhole human beings, free of guilt and fear, secure in the knowledge thatthey are equal to men in the sight of God and that, therefore, they mustnot be unequal to men in any human society.
Notes 1. K.M. Ishaque, "Islamic Law -- Its Ideals and Principles," in A.Gauher, ed., The Challenge of Islam (London: The Islamic Council ofEurope, 1980), p. 157.Back to Text 2. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in Modern History (Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1957). Back to Text 3. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought inIslam (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1962); the quotation here is fromLecture 6, "The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam." Back toText 4. Ibid., p. 168.Back to Text 5. Ibid., p. 85. Back to Text 6. The translations of the five passages quoted here are from 'AbdullahYusuf 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, New Revised Edition, (Brentwood, MD: AmanaCorporation, 1989).


The Woman as Member of the Society Some biased people who are guided by personal interests propagate that Islam has forced the woman to be imprisoned at home and not to go out except to the grave! Has that verdict a true basis in the Qur'an or in the Sunna (prophetic traditions) or in the history of Muslim women in the first three centuries, which were the best? Certainly not. The Qur'an makes the man and woman partners in bearing the heaviest responsibilities in Islamic life, and that is the responsibility of enjoining the right and forbidding the evil. The Almighty says: "The believers, men and women, are "Auliy," (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Maaruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); they offer their prayers perfectly Iqamat-as-Salat and give the Zakat and obey Allah and His Messenger". [Surah 9:71] As an example of the application of that principle, it happened that there was a woman in the mosque who disagreed with the caliph `Umar Al-Faruq ("The One Who Distinguishes Truth from Falsehood", i.e. `Umar ibn Al-Khattab) while he was addressing the congregation from the pulpit. He accepted her opinion and discarded his, saying openly, "A woman is correct and `Umar is wrong. [ Mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his interpretation, improving its authority, as mentioned earlier] The Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) said, `seeking knowledge is obligatory for every Muslim. [Transmitted by Ibn Majah, part 1, (224), on the authority of Anas, corrected by Al-Seyoti in ancient times, and by Al-Albany in modern times.] The Muslim scholars agree that a Muslim woman is also included in the meaning of the Hadith, as she is obliged to know what corrects her creed, improves her worship, and controls her manners within the morals of Islam, etc. She is obliged to know Allah's laws about what is allowed, what is forbidden, and her rights and duties. She could reach the highest stage of knowledge to achieve the grade of ijtihad (independent judgement of religious matters). Her husband has no right to prevent her from seeking knowledge, which she is obliged to do, if he is not able to teach her or if he does not do it properly. The wives of the Prophet's Companions used to go to the Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) to ask him about issues that concerned them. They were not prevented by modesty (shyness) from knowing their religion well. Congregational prayer is not demanded of a woman, as it is demanded of a man. Her praying ahome could be better for her circumstances and calling. However, her husband cannot forbid her if she wishes to go to congregational prayer in a mosque. The Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) said, "Do not forbid Allah's women to go to Allah's mosques". [Transmitted by Muslim in his Sahih on the authority of Ibn Umar, 1/327, (442).] A woman can come out of her house to run an errand for herself, her husband, or her children in the field or in the market place, as did Asma'a bint Abu Bakr That Al-Nit, gain ("The One Who Possessed Two Belts"). She said, "I used to carry date pits on my head from Al-Zubeir's land-my husband's-while I lived in Medina, and it was about two thirds of a league from Medina." A woman could accompany the army for first aid and nursing tasks and similar services suitable to her nature and her abilities. Ahmad and Al-Bukahri recounted on the authority of Al-Rubayyi' bint Muaawith of the Ansar who said, "We went to the battle with Allah's Messenger (blessings and peace be upon him) offering water to the men and doing them service and returning those killed and wounded to Medina". [Transmitted by Ahmad, 6/358.] Similarly, Ahmad and Muslim recounted on the authority of Um `Ateyya, who said, "I went to the fighting with Allah's Messenger (blessings and peace be upon him) seven times, following them in their campaigns, preparing food, treating the wounded and helping the sick". [Transmitted by Ahmad, 6/407 and Muslim (1812)] This is the work for the woman and for the nature of her function; but to carry a weapon and fight or lead a battalion is not one of her affairs, unless there is a special need for that; then she could share with men in their struggle against the enemies as much as she is able. On the Day of Hunain Um Salm took a dagger, and when her husband asked her the reason, she said, "I took to so that if any of the polytheists came near me I would stab him in his abdomen". [Transmitted by Muslim (1809)] Um `Imarah of the Ansar fought so well in the Battle of Uhud that the Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) commended her, and in the apostate wars she witnessed the battles herself until Musaylimah Al-Khattab ("The Liar") was killed. She returned with ten stab wounds. If in some ages the women are deprived of knowledge, isolated from life at home as if they were pieces of furniture, not taught by the husbands and not given the chance to learn-even going to the mosque is considered forbidden-if such a picture its prevalent, then it is a consequence of ignorance, exaggeration and deviation from the guidance of Islam. It is then an exaggeration in rigidity, not allowed by Allah. Islam is not responsible for such absurd traditions of the past; likewise it is not responsible for other exaggerated conventions created at present. The nature of Islam is the gentle balance in every thing legislated and suggested concerning rules and morals. Islam does not grant one thing to forbid something else, nor does it exaggerate one side at the expense of the other. It does not exaggerate in giving rights, nor in assigning duties. Thereupon, it was not the intention of Islam to pamper the woman at the expense of the man, nor to be intent on satisfying a woman's whims and diminishing her calling, nor satisfying the man while belittling her dignity. But we find that Islam's stance towards the woman illustrated as follows: 1.. It protects-as we have already said-her nature and her femininity as created by Allah, and it keeps her away from the wolves who like to devour her illicitly and away from the greediness of exploiters who wish to exploit her femininity as a commercial tool and for illicit profit. 2.. It respects her supreme function for which she is intuitively and chosen by her Creator, Who gave her more than man's portion of compassion, affection, sensitivity and excitability to be prepared for the compassionate vocation of motherhood, which supervises the greatest industry in the nation, the industry of the future generations. Islam considers the home as the great kingdom of the woman. She is its mistress, its head and axis. She is the man's wife, his partner, the solace of his loneliness, and the mother of his children. Islam considers a woman's job of keeping house, looking after her husband's affairs, and raising her children well as a kind of worship (`ibaadah) and struggle in the cause of Allah (jihad). Therefore, it resists every method or system that hampers her from fulfilling her task or that impairs her from performing her duty in the best way or that destroys her home. Every method or system that attempts to remove the woman from her kingdom, to take her from her husband, or displace her from her children in the name of freedom, work, art, etc., is in fact the woman's foe that wants to rob her of everything and hardly give her anything. Doubtless, it is rejected by Islam. 3.. Islam wants to establish happy homes to be the basis of a happy society. Happy homes are established on confidence and certainty, not on doubts and suspicion. The family whose consistency is based on a couple exchanging suspicions and fears is a family on the edge of an abyss, a family for which life is an unbearable hell. 4.. Islam allows her to work outside the home in an appropriate job which suits her nature, her concern, and her capacity, and which does not crush her femininity. Her work is legitimate within certain limits and certain conditions, especially when she or her family needs the outside work or when the society itself needs her work in particular. The need for work is not merely limited to the financial aspect. It could be a psychological need such as the need of a specialised learned woman who is not married, or the married woman who has no children, or who has a lot of leisure time and to alleviate boredom. The matter is not as claimed by those who are for the woman 's work without any limitations or controls. We will deal with this topic in some details in the next pages, Allah willing. Those who exaggerate about woman's work and the misconceptions concerning them However, as the captives of intellectual invasion call for a mixed relationship between the man and the woman, and the melting of the barriers between the two sexes, we see the call to put the woman in any kind of job, whether she needs the job or not, and whether society needs such work or not. This matter is a completion of the first, as it is fulfilling the goals of mixed relationships, melted differences, and the liberation of the injustice and darkness of the Middle Ages, as claimed. The cunning and slyness is frequently shown in not declaring outright what is wanted is woman to rebel against her nature, exceed the limits of her femininity and make use of that femininity for illicit pleasure or illicit earning. They appear in the image of pure and loyal people who do not seek anything but the general interest. Opinions concerning the work of the woman are stressed through scattered reasons, collected as follows 1.. The West, which is more advanced than us in civilisation, has preceded us in employing women; so, if we wish to advance like the West, we should follow suit in everything, for civilisation is an integrated whole. 2.. Women represent half the society. If they stay at home without employment, it is a waste, and it has harmful effects on the national economy. It is in the interest of the society for women to work. 3.. It is also in the interest of the family for the woman to work, as the costs of living have increased in our age.The woman's employment increases the family's income and helps the man with expenses of living, especially in an environment where income is limited 4.. It is in the interest of the woman herself for her to work. Coming into contact with people and life, with the society outside the home, polishes her personality and provides her with experiences she would never have obtained inside her home. 5.. In addition, work is a weapon to arm her against the enmity of time. Her father might pass away, her husband might divorce her, or she might be neglected by her children. In that case, she would not be humiliated by poverty and need, especially at a time characterised by selfishness, widespread ingratitude, and cut-off blood relations in which everyone is merely concerned about himself. [ See "Woman's Work and the Call of its Propagators" and the replies to them in "Woman between Jurisprudence and the Law" (Al-Mara'ah baina al-Fiquh wal-Qann) by Dr Mustafa Sib,.] The reply concerning these misconceptions As to the claim of the West, it is a false claim for the following reasons: 1.. The West is not a good example for us to follow, and we are not committed to take the West as a worshippers of Allah or as a model to be followed. " To you your religion and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)". [Surah 109:6] 2.. In the West the woman has been forced to go to the factory, the store, etc. and does not do so out of her own choice. She is driven by the need of food and is obliged to earn her living after being rejected by man, who refuses to be in charge in a cruel and merciless society which does not have mercy for the young nor for the weak females. Allah has provided us with the maintenance system in our Islamic Law, which makes such action unnecessary for the woman. Professor Mohammed Youssef Moussa, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in his book Islam and Humanity's Need of it, while discussing Islam's care for the family: It may be relevant to mention here that during my stay in France, I lived with a family whose maid-servant seemed to me to be of a good family and did in fact arduse my curiosity. I, therefore, asked the lady of the house, "Why should this lady debase herself in this way? Has she no relative who can support her and put an end to her degrading job?" The answer was that the lady had an extremely rich uncle, but who still did not look after her. When I told her that the lady could sue him to get support, she was greatly surprised and told me that the law did not provide for this at all. When she knew that Islam states that such an uncle was legally obliged to support his poor relative, she commented that this blessing of Islam is really needed to put an end to the debasement of the fairer sex in outdoor jobs. [ Islam and Humanity's Need of It by Mohammed Youssef Moussa (trans. by The Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Ministry of Waqfs, Cairo).] She means that their fear of hunger and loss is what has led such an army of women to work, through necessity. 3.. The West which is followed as a model has been complaining now of woman's work and its consequences. Women themselves are complaining of such misfortune on which they have no choice. The famous writer Anna Rhode, said in the newspaper Eastern Mail: If our daughters work at home as servants or like servants, it is better and less unfortunate than working in laboratories where girls are infected by disease and dirt which take the gleam from their lives forever. I wish our country were like the Muslim's, arrayed in purity and chastity where the servant and the slave enjoy the best in life and are treated as if they were the children of the home. Their honour is undefiled. Yes, it is shameful for the English to make of our daughters a model of evil by their promiscuous relationships. Why don"t we seek what agrees with a girl's natural tendency to work at home and leave men's work to men to keep her honour intact? [From Islam and Sex (Al-Islam wal-Jins) by Fathy Yakan.] 4.. It is not in the interest of the society to abandon her first calling at home to work as engineer, or a lawyer, or a representative, or a judge, or a factory worker; but it is in its interest for her work in the field of her specialisation for which she is instinctually prepared, the field of marital life and motherhood, which is not less serious but more so than working in stores, laboratories and establishments. Napoleon was asked, "Which castles of France are more impregnable?" He said, "Good mothers." Many have undermined the work of the house wife which is one of the greatest services to the community. The responsibilities of a home and children are abundant and challenging. The woman has the task of homemaking, which entails a lot of physical labour, and the job of shaping her children to be productive citizens. If some women have some leisure time, it can be spent doing crafts, serving their communities and their fellow women, or contributing to fighting poverty, ignorance and vice. In fact, a lot of working women employ other women as baby-sitters for their children or as servants at home. This means that the house needs a woman to look after its affairs, and the priority goes to its mistress and queen instead of to the outsider, who in most cases a stranger to the house with different morals, religion, language, ideas and habits, as is prevalent in the Gulf societies where nannies and servants are imported from the Far East. The danger of that situation cannot be hidden from the sane person. 5.. The happiness of the family rests not in merely increasing the income-which is mostly spent on buying clothes for going to work, and necessities for a mixed life (e.g. men mixing with women) which is based on affectation, the fashion race and being in vogue. In return, the home is deprived of the quietude and companionship established by the woman in the atmosphere of the family. The working woman is exhausted, quick-tempered, and needs someone to lessen her burden, so she cannot give what she has not got to the home. 6.. It is not in the interest of the woman to force her out of her nature and her responsibility and force her to do a man's work. Allah has created her a female. To do a man's work, then, is cheating her nature and reality. A woman could gradually lose her femininity until she is what some English writers have called the "third sex". That is what many women of moral courage have confessed. 7.. What is claimed as weapon in the hand of the woman, if it works in the West, does not work for us as Muslims. This is because in Islam a woman has her needs satisfied due to the obligatory maintenance decreed by Islamic Law on her father, or her husband, or sons, or brothers, or others of blood relation. If copying the West has started to make us gradually lose our traits so that even the brother has started to deny his sister, the male relative has started to abandon his duty towards his female relative, and many people think merely of themselves, we still must adhere to Allah's Laws until the religious motive supersedes the worldly motives. The harmful effect when a woman is involved in men's work without restrictions or limits Therefore we learn that when the woman is involved in men's work without restrictions or limits, it has its harmful effect on various aspects: 1.. It is harmful for the woman herself because she loses her femininity and her distinguishing characteristics and is deprived of her home and children. Some become barren and some are like "the third sex", which is neither a man nor a woman. 2.. It is harmful for the husband because he is deprived of a bounteous source flowing with good company and cheerfulness. Nothing flows any longer except arguments and complaints about the troubles of work, the rivalry of work mates, men and women. This is in addition to the competior jealousy the man may feel, real or imagined, of other men in the workplace who vie for her attention. 3.. It has a harmful effect on children because a mother's compassion, sympathy and supervision cannot be compensated by a servant or a teacher. How can children get benefit from a mother spending her day at work and on her arrival at home being tired and stressed? Neither her physical nor her psychological condition would allow the best she has to give regarding education or direction to her children. 4.. It is harmful for men because every working woman takes the position of an eligible working man. As long as there are unemployed men in the society, the woman's work is harmful to them. 5.. It is harmful for the work itself because women are frequently absent from their work due to natural emergencies which cannot be avoided, as menstruation, giving birth, nursing a baby, and the like. All such things deprive the work of discipline and valuable output. 6.. It is harmful on morals. It is harmful to the woman's morals if she loses her modesty and on the man if he loses his attentiveness. It is harmful on the whole society if earning a living and increasing the income is the main goal sought by people, disregarding higher principles and good models. 7.. It is harmful on social life because going against the grains of nature and dislocating things which are naturally located spoils life itself and causes imbalance, disorder and chaos. When is a woman allowed to work? Do we understand that the woman's work is forbidden by Allah in any case? Certainly not. However, here we have to indicate to what extent and in which fields the Islamic Law allows the woman to work. That is what we are going to point out briefly and clearly, so that the right wilt not be mixed with the wrong on this sensitive issue. The woman's first and greatest work, in which no one can rival her, is to rear new generations. She is prepared for that by Allah, both physically and psychologically, and she should not be occupied by anything else materialistic or moral whatsoever, as nobody can replace her in that great work on which the future of the nation and its wealth, i.e. its human wealth, depend. May Allah have mercy on the poet of the Nile, Hafiz Ibrahim, who said: Mother is a school, if well-prepared An entire healthy society is prepared. That does not signify that the woman's work outside her home is forbidden by Islamic Law. No one has the right to forbid without an authentic text which is clear in meaning. On that basis, we say that the woman's work in itself is allowed. It is even requested if she is in need of it, if she is a widow, divorced, or did not have a chance to marry, and if she has no income to avoid the humility of asking for charity or people's condescension. It could be the family who needs her work, such as to help her husband, or to care for her children, or young brothers and sisters, of her father in his old age, as in the story of the two daughters, of the old man mentioned in Surah Al-Qasas in the Qur'an, who used to look after their father's sheep. The Almighty says: " And when he arrived at the water of Midian (Madyan) he found there a group of men watering (their flocks), and beside them he found two women who were keeping back (their flocks). He said, "What is the matter with you? " They said "We cannot water (our flocks) until the shepherds take (their flocks). And our father is a very old man. [Surah 28:23] The society itself might be in need of the woman's work, as in giving medical treatment to women and looking after them, teaching girls and such work that concerns women. It is more proper for a woman to deal with another woman like herself, instead of with a man. The acceptance of a man in some cases is a matter of necessity which should be considered accordingly and should not be taken as a rule. The same case applies when the society needs working hands for the sake of development. If we allow some women to work, it should be restricted by a number of conditions: 1.. The work itself should be Islamically lawful in the sense that it should not be Islamically forbidden (haram) or lead to what is forbidden, for instance as a maid working in the house of a bachelor, or as a private secretary for a manager, whose position requires her to stay with him alone, or as a dancer who excites physical instincts and lusts, or as a worker in a restaurant serving alcohol. The Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) condemned those who produce alcohol as well as those who transport or sell it. She should not work as an air hostess, a position which obliges her to wear forbidden clothes and offer what is unlawful (haram) to passengers. Her job would also require her to stay overnight alone in foreign countries, some of which are not safe. She should not work in other types of work forbidden by Islam for women in particular, or forbidden for men or women. 2.. If she goes out of her house, she should adhere to the morals of a Muslim woman in her clothing, her talk and movement. " And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent and let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. [Surah 24:31] then be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease (of hypocrisy or evil desire for adultery, etc.) should be moved with desire, but speak in an honourable manner. [Surah 33:32] 3.. Her work should not affect other duties which cannot be neglected, such as her duty towards her children and husband, which is her foremost and basic duty. [For more information about the woman's position in Islam, see The Liberation of Woman in the Period of the Message (Tahreer al-Mara'ah fe Asr Ar-Resalah) by Abd Al-Haleem Mohammed Abu Shaqqah. It is a six Volume encyclopaedic book documented with texts from the Qur'an and Sunna.] 4.. What is required of the Muslim community is to organise matters and make arrangements so that the Muslim woman can work-if her interest or her family's or her society's requires that-without touching her modesty, or contradicting her commitment towards Allah, herself or her home. The general atmosphere should help her to perform her tasks as well as obtain her rights. There should be some arrangements where she can work part-time for half pay (threes day a week, for example). She should also be granted enough leave for her marriage, delivery and nursing. 5.. Some of the arrangements should include setting schools, colleges and universities especially for girls where they can practise sports and physical exercises suitable for them and where they can have freedom of movement to practise different activities. There should also be women in ministries, establishments and banks, away from places of temptation and where a woman will not be alone with one or more men, in addition to other and new means which cannot be counted. It is Allah Who says the truth and guides to the right path. Woman Status in Islaam & Christianity
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/religions/woman.html
Christen Woman Muslim Woman
When the woman (Eve) saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband (Adam), who was with her, and he ate it...Then the man (Adam) and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" He (Adam) answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." And he (God) said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man said, "The woman (Eve) you put here with me-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." To the woman he (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he (God) said, "Because you listen to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." Genesis 3:6-17

(God said):"O Adam! You and your wife dwell in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as you wish: but do not approach this tree, or you run into harm and transgression." "Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them (Adam and Eve), bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he (Satan) said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest you should become angels or such beings as live for ever." "And he (Satan) swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser." "So by deceit he brought about their (Adam and Eve) fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called to them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy to you?" "They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: if You do not forgive us and do not bestow upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost"
Quraan 7:19-23
Female Gender vs. Male Gender


"...if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..."
Leviticus 12:2-5

"To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills. Quraan 42:49
"He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them, they will be protection for him against Hell-Fire." Prophet Mohammed
The Female Spiritual Essence


"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare." "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-while I was still searching but not finding- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all."
Ecclesiastes 7:26-28

"And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: behold she said: 'O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to You, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong," "And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants)." Quraan 66:11-2
"Heaven is at the feet of the mothers."
Prophet Mohammed
Menses


"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening."
Leviticus 15:19-23

Ali asked the Prophet Mohammed if when a man and a woman make love then their clothes stick to them from the sweat of their bodies, or if when a woman has her period her clothes stick to her body, are the clothes considered unclean?
The Prophet replied: "No, the uncleanness is only in the semen and the blood."
Prophet Mohammed
Sexual Relation During Her Menses


"Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."
Leviticus 18:19

"They ask you concerning women's courses (period). Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: so keep away (of making love) from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean..."
Quraan 2:222
A Woman's Right to Education


"let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."
1Corinthians 14:34-35

Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and Muslim woman.
Prophet Mohammed
Right to Inheritance


"Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter...'"
Numbers 27:8

"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, -a determinate share."
Quraan 4:7
Dressing Modesty / Head Covering


"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head" 1 Corinthians 11:3-6
"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God"
1 Timothy 2:9-10

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Quraan 33:59
"...they (believing women) should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women...or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex..." Quraan 24:31
Polygamy


"After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." 2 Samuel 5:13"
He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines..." 1 Kings 11:3
"And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah." Genesis 4:19
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh..." Deuteronomy 21:15
"if he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall her not diminish." Exodus 21:10

"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one... to prevent you from doing injustice."
Quraan 4:3
Prohibition in Marriage


"Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."
Leviticus 18:18

"Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: -your mothers, daughters, sisters...and two sisters (the wife and her sister) in wedlock at one and the same time..."
Quraan 4:23
Divorce


"...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

"O Prophet! When you do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately) their prescribed periods: and fear Allah your Lord..."
Quraan 65:1
The Divorcee & Widow


"...who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
Matthew 5:32
"'The woman he (the priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people.'"
Leviticus 21:13-4

"If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: when they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you (marrying widows) if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner..."
Quraan 2:234
The Respect of Parents


"Then he (Jesus) went down to Nazareth with them(his parents) and was obedient to them..."
Luke 2:51
"For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
Mark 7:10
"Each of you must respect his mother and father..."
Leviticus 19:3

"He (God) has made me (Jesus) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable."
Quraan 19:32
"And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail (pains of childbirth) upon travail his other bore him, and in two years was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to your parents: to Me is (your final) Goal."
Quraan 31:14