Re-Examining the Concept of Women’s Rights

Dr. Hanaan Balala

It is assumed, if not hoped, that women’s rights – in all its varieties,

trends, and organizations – aims for one outcome; the empowerment
of women. What, however, does ‘the empowerment of women’
mean?; what does it look like when embodied in a woman or in
women?; Is there a standard ‘empowered woman’? and can one
empower another who is not psychologically empowered through
external measures?; Just as Light is not born of darkness, so is
empowerment not born of disempowerment. A state, any state, only
replicate itself.

By establishing a long-standing movement of ‘empowering women’,

we are affirming the disempowered status of not only those women
experiencing a lack of self-autonomy, but all women in general. This
perhaps explains why is it that throughout recent history there has
been a movement to empower women with little fundamental effect
on women in general. We are, after all, one human body. No part of a
body or entity can ail without affecting the whole accordingly just as
an aching tooth or throbbing toe destroys the peace of a physical
body.

Consider, why is it that there has never been a men’s rights

movement though men too have been enslaved and suffered
disempowerment in the past? In fact, some men today experience as
disempowered a status as their female counterparts. Empowerment,
like Love, Joy or Freedom, is not gender selective.
Empowerment is a state of being; not a set of action or a prescribed
way of life. In the absence of a state of empowerment, one
experiences disempowerment just as darkness is simply the absence
of Light. Disempowerment is not actually a real state but the absence
of a human being’s natural state of being; the absence of Freedom
and wholeness (whol-e-ness/holiness). All humans are created equal
and empowered. Thus, women are innately empowered and are
entitled to all the attending rights due to a Free human being.

To lament the disempowered state of women is akin to lamenting the

inferiority of women to men. Women are not inferior to men nor
disempowered in state, though they may be subjected to customs and
circumstances that rob them of their equality and God-given rights
just as slaves were once robbed of their equality and God-given rights
by those who assumed power over others in various parts of the
world. Both disempowerment and inferiority/superiority are illusory
and false conditions resulting from a denial of the inherent state of
the human being/s in question.

The Creator, whatever the name chosen to address All that Is, abides
beyond the duality of the fragmented mind of 3 dimension. It is for
this reason that the Quran addresses women in the same terms as
men and where male references are used, this is understood to
include the female. It is only when the question was put to
Muhammad directly regarding the male phraseology of the Quran
that deliberate adjustments were made in the language of revelation
to indicate that no gender bias is intended.

To illustrate using contextual examples from the 6th/7th Century, the

Quran prohibits the prevalent practice of female infanticide simply
by questioning the sin for which the female infant was killed for? This
established a girl-child’s right to Life equal to the male child.
Likewise, Muhammad established elaborate laws of inheritance,
marriage, divorce, spousal maintenance and individual autonomy of
women in all aspects of life with equal status and deservability before
God though their cultural roles may vary.

The rights of women enforced by Muhammad through the Quran and

his exemplary life catered for the welfare of it’s focus group in exactly
the same way that rights of orphans did or rights of marriage
partners provided for the welfare of those it addressed. Just as the
rights of orphans and marriage spouses do not dictate details of dress
code and specificity of conduct beyond what is contextually
honourable and kind (ma’ruf and maslah), so do the rights of women
indicate accordingly. What is emphasized beyond the contextual
specificity is the inherently wholesome (whole-sum) and deserving
state of the group or individuals in question. Their welfare is
underpinned by the principles that govern human existence on Earth:
Dignity, Equality, Freedom, Fraternity and Justice.

The principles of Life do not distinguish between religious affiliation,

male and female, orphans and parented children, married and
unmarried, felon or free; young or old and is in every way ‘blind’.
What these group specific set of rights do is simply apply the
overarching principle of Oneness to the specific segment within
humanity so as to maintain balance at all times between the different
segments of society. On this basis does the Quran illustrate the lives
and examples of women in the history of Humanity so as to give
indication of the worthiness and equality of women in the sight of the
Creator. It indicates specifically that all Humanity is created from a
female consciousness for whom a partner was created and from their
union many males and females were birthed (Al-Nisaa: 1). Likewise
does the life of Muhammad indicate the empowered state of women
through the example of his relationships with his wives, daughters
and women generally as well as the individual autonomy and
freedom they enjoyed with him much to the consternation of his male
companions.

In this light, I ask, did Muhammad intend the creation of distinction

between man and woman for purposes of denigration and
discrimination that they have come to be used for? I think not, but I’ll
leave each reader to ponder the issue for one’s self.
Islam is just an Arabic word denoting the natural state of all life. It
has been associated with a religious belief and institution that has
marred its essence by covering it in an illusory form prone to rigidity.
Islam as a state of being has existed from the time of Adam (the
mythical first man) to Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jesus,
Muhammad and the various Masters that walked this Earth to date
regardless of whether they are mentioned in the Quran. Just as the
bearer of the message changed with the time and context of
deliverance so too did the form of the message change. The Principles
of Islam, however, remain the same; Principles of Oneness, Peace,
Justice, Equality, Compassion and Welfare of all Humans

Islam, like Life, is inclusive in that as it establishes itself, it takes the

society as it finds it and evolves there from towards growth and
expansion. Muhammad found Arabia in a state of deep ignorance and
blatant imbalance in many aspects, not only gender relations. Matters
of marriage, inheritance and the treatment of orphans, were
especially unsatisfactory and out of kilter with the natural state of
human justice and equality. Their effects were experienced first hand
by Muhammad who suffered their injustice. Muhammad’s task
therefore, as a messenger of Islam was that of returning his society to
a state of balance commencing from the disarrayed state he found it
in. Balance is the hallmark of Islam and each messenger, through out
history, came to restore balance to humanity who had veered off the
path of Oneness.

The imbalanced state of society in 6th/7th Century AD Arabia as

Muhammad found it was that of male dominance and assumed
superiority. Men ruled over women; female infanticide was a regular
and accepted practice; women were not individuals but appendages
to the male guardian/masters they attached to; chattels that could be
traded as their guardians/masters pleased and the mistreatment of
women a general custom. Even the aristocratic (few) women lived a
comfortable but invisible existence. This troubled Muhammad and he
was inspired to restore women to a position of equanimity with their
male counter-parts.

Empowerment thus is simply the restoration of balance where

imbalance has set in between two equal and opposite sides of one
indivisible whole. Empowerment is not for purposes of drawing and
maintaining distinction between two sides so as to prove the worth
of one against the other. It is establishes all human beings, male and
female, young and old of any race or colour, as equal in
being/essence though they differ in form. Empowerment is thus not
for purposes of securing the value of or right to equality.
Empowerment is simply for the purposes of returning that which is
otherwise out of balance, back to natural balance so that wholeness
may be restored.

Thus, the value of empowerment is not to decry differences between

the genders by allocating rights to one against the other but rather
empowerment bridges the divide and distinctions between the two
by restoring the rights of one with (not against) the other. Through
this Oneness may be restored by elevating one part of the whole unit
to a place of equality with the other part of that whole. Man and
woman are two sides of ONE whole – a wealth of indications in the
Quran point to this truth.

In creating and establishing rules and rights pertaining to women,

Muhammad was acting from the premise of the culture and context of
6th/7th Century Arabia as he found it, with the aim of elevating
women, within that culture and context, to a position of equanimity
with men so as to restore balance to society. He did not intend
through his inspired vision and creation to provide an exhaustive and
fixed list of rights and rules pertaining to women so as to lock them
eternally within a grid that would eventually hold them prisoners to
an outdated and alien culture (equally for those who today are Arab
or not). If indeed this was his intention, it contradicts and conflicts
with his every action and demonstrative example, let alone the spirit
and principles of Islam as expressed in the Quran and therein
exemplified in multiple personalities both male and female even
before the advent of Muhammad.

It also behooves explanation as to why a fluid and eternal philosophy

that indicates its facilitation of change and leaps of evolution would
lock one half of humanity to rules within a specific context and
culture forever thus reducing women to deadened regurgitates of a
culture and context long expired? Equally, why would an eternal
philosophy stating as fact the equality between all beings and
stressing the indivisible oneness of male and female as two sides that
form a whole, allow one gender to evolve in mode and manner within
respective contexts yet lock the other part of the indivisible whole to
death through compliance to an extinct context?

Surely, humanity would not be so foolish as to apply rules

appropriate to the context of dessert Arabia to the winter colds of
Europe? No sane person would wear a winter coat in the heat of the
dessert, how then are the garments appropriate to 7 th Century AD
Arabia appropriate to the global context today? How then, are we so
foolish to apply gender rules that were suitable to 6 th/7th Century
desert Arabia to our reality today? A full body cloak is appropriate to
the dessert when venturing outside the home to shield one’s self
from the winds and sand. The veil over the face keeps sand out of
one’s eyes and face. Even men often wrap their head cloths over their
faces to shield themselves such. A cloak was also useful as a
protective covering early in the mornings or late in the evenings
when the day-time temperatures dropped to leave a chill. In
addition, the cloak provided a modicum of decency to ease the
resistance against women’s increased public participation. Women
began being seen and heard in society against customary conventions
of a patriarchal society and the suggestions on decent dressing was to
protect women from attacks against their person and cater to their
welfare; they were not intended as an indication of inferiority or a
means of subjugation. These are merely inventions of human society
after the demise of Muhammad. Only the Quran read within historical
context and the life of Muhammad is authoritative in this matter.

The challenge faced by those working towards women’s rights today

is in trying - struggling – to fit the rules set out in the Quran and by
Muhammad for 6th/7th Century context Arabia to the 21st Century.
Rules, however, change; it is the underlying principle that endure. It
is essential, therefore, to acknowledge that the purpose of
empowerment within the context of the Quran is to restore Balance
to Humanity. With this in mind, humanity can begin to identify, with
open hearts and minds, the areas where gender imbalance exists, and
there from begin to create and apply measures to restore balance and
bridge existing divides so as to restore wholeness/oneness to the
human race in the area of gender relations.
With this approach, fresh applications of the timeless principles may
emerge. An approach that is not attached to the past nor reminiscent
of the nostalgic glory of a civilization long gone. After all, Islam, at all
times, was and is profoundly appropriate and practical to the present
context and time. This is why given the fundamental and common
principles between the messengers of Islam, each sought fresh and
practical application of the same principles to their unique cultures
and contexts. This is why though Muhammad was urged to follow in
the footsteps of Abraham, he originated fresh solutions and practical
applications suitable to every sphere and aspect of life, except where
the existing practice was in sync with the philosophy of Oneness and
Equanimity.

Equanimity does not mean sameness; each gender has natural and
appropriate tendencies that must be respected for purposes of
maintaining nature’s balance yet without detracting from their equal
status in the scheme of life.

In this light, we may find, just as Jesus’ message came to liberate the
people from much of the obsolete practices set by Moses, and
Muhammad’s message liberated the people of Arabia from the
obsolete practices of the Jewish and Christian traditions, so too does
the origination of empowering rules within our present context
liberate us from much of the obsolete rules of 6th/7th Century Arabia
that was developed after Muhammad’s demise. That this is valid is
indicated expressly in the Quran in Al-Baqara: 133-134 & 141.

Those who argue for women’s rights today by insisting on the rules
and practices established in the culture and context of 6th-7th Century
Arabia have little understanding of the essence and spirit of Islam. It
is akin to insisting on the right to ride camels on the free ways of
Arabia, England or California because the Prophet and his wives so
rode camels. Camels were merely a functional form of transportation
best suited to the context and culture of their time. Today we drive
cars and fly in airplanes and indeed had Muhammad the opportunity
to travel in cars and airplanes he would have; his biographies attest
to his progressive character and he is reported to having urged the
seeking of knowledge even in the land of China. From knowledge
springs new ideas and ways of Life. Indeed, the inventions that
proliferated the Arab world, and that are today celebrated as part of
the golden age of the Islamic Civilisation, stem from the study of
Greek works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as of other
philosophers and disciplines. These celebrated inventors and
scholars of the 8-11th century understood profoundly the principles
and philosophy of Islam to be a Philosophy of Oneness that builds
bridges between apparently disparate peoples or disciplines and is
concerned primarily with that which brings welfare to each
individual and thus to the whole. The inherently time and context
appropriateness of Islam made manifest in human life is expressly
indicated in the Quran Al-An’am:9

Why is it, then, that a Philosophy that is so open to change and so

fluid in it’s form has been reduced to such rigid form today?

The answer lies in the human agency that interprets and applies the
Divine message to reflect their psyche and perceptions. It may lie in
the fact that we seem to have lost sight and understanding of the
principles and purpose of the message of Muhammad. We have
fixated upon and are fascinated by an adherence to form whilst
forgetting the spirit and purpose of the message. Yet our insistence
on form is the much rebuked idol/image worship that the Quran
repeatedly condemns of people. Idols and images are not just those
carved out of stone or wood but those fixed form of the mind erected
in nostalgia of the past or in attachment to forms that we insist on
preserving so as to furnish us with false psychological security based
on images of the past.

Moreover, some of the mental images of the past that we cling to

were never part of the practice of Muhammad and those that were,
neither the Quran nor Muhammad intended to be set in stone as
eternal forms. Only the Principles of Oneness through a
relinquishment of the illusory state of separation sustained by the
ego identity and a return to wholeness is eternal; all else is fluid. The
forms of the past, just like idols and images, serve us no good nor do
they ‘stand the test of time’. Truth is not a product of the past, which
is dead to the present. Instead, Truth is ever fresh and appropriate to
the present moment. It changes to suit the present time and context
of application. The hallmark of Truth is its appropriate and wise
application to the present context; otherwise it has no value to Life.