Islamic Family: Patriarchal and Unequal or a Source of Peace?

Critics argue that the family institution in Islam is unequal and patriarchal, granting many human rights solely to men. They refer to the sacred texts of Muslims, stating that even in the Quran, women are created 'for the comfort of men.' Defenders of Islam's approach to family, however, consider Islamic rulings on family to be reflective of their time and argue that women are supported within the Islamic family, and that unequal laws can be changed through ijtihad (independent reasoning). I am Fahimeh Khodr Haidari, hosting this program with Rasoul Nafisi, a sociologist who has followed religious transformations in many of his articles, and Sajad Nik-Ain, a religious scholar. We begin this week's discussion with Mr. Nik-Ain, asking how the family institution, one of the oldest and most functional social institutions created by humanity, is viewed in Islam. There are criticisms that the family institution as defined in Islam is merely patriarchal. I want to start the discussion from here. Sajad Nik-Ain: Yes, the family institution in Islam, and generally in Abrahamic religions, is one that holds special importance; regardless of whether it is judged to be patriarchal or not, Islam places great importance on family and the institution of family. That the family institution in Islam is a patriarchal institution may be perceived as such in our contemporary evaluation, looking back 1400 years, but if we return to that time, certainly, the culture and norms of the society in which Islam was born included patriarchy as part of that social culture, and Islam could not have been exempt from that culture. However, today, if you see that social norms have changed, and of course, in my view, ethics are relative and should be defined in the context of time and place, and if we look at it from this perspective, patriarchy was part of that culture, but Islam did not assign eternity to it, and patriarchy [in Islam] does not hold sanctity. Mr. Nafisi, you heard Mr. Nik-Ain's remarks. The question arises here that a Muslim today is confronted with what is in the Quran, the Hadith, and the traditions of the Prophet of Islam, all of which have not changed. How should a Muslim today behave when, as Mr. Nik-Ain confirmed, we are faced with a patriarchal institution? Rasoul Nafisi: Interestingly or sadly, the status of women in the family is not only in Islamic tradition but also in most traditions, for example, in Hinduism, the situation is dire. Essentially, all ancient traditions have turned women into secondary characters because they were not in war or political work - which were two important places for holding power. In this historical reality of Muslim societies, instead of reaching the character and power of women, even less than in the early Islamic period, this power relationship has been preserved, and in my opinion, a very important issue is to look at this mechanism of how during the time of the Prophet, women had power, were with men, prayed together, and socialized. How is it that throughout our history in that same region, namely Arabia, we have women who, until just six or seven months ago, did not even have the right to take their children to school? To explain this issue, we must look at another principle, which is the sanctity of the text. The sanctity of the text means that the Holy Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Imams have eternity for us, and this text must be executed without any reduction. These factors lead to the preservation of this imbalance of power between men and women, which seems to be inscribed in stone. Mr. Nik-Ain, you apparently want to provide an explanation. Nik-Ain: Let me mention two points. In fact, the point that Dr. Nafisi mentioned about the status of women during the time of the Prophet supports the idea that in the essence of this religion, neither denigration nor misogyny is present. After all, for Muslims, the tradition of their Prophet is also part of these laws. You cannot say that I derived misogyny from the Quran, and this is Islam, and where the Prophet gives power to his wife in his government, and according to Dr. Nafisi, they socialized, there is no misogyny here. However, another point is that there are verses stating that men are qawwam (guardians). Being qawwam is a responsibility, not a right. That is, having guardianship over women, especially 1400 years ago when these issues were legislated. Ethical issues are very relative. You cannot judge the rulings that were made 1400 years ago to make relationships fairer at that time, and they certainly made them fairer, without considering the context of time and place. Additionally, the second fallacy is the fallacy of eternity. So what is the purpose of ijtihad? I tell you that not only today, after 1400 years, but immediately after the Prophet and twenty-five years after the Prophet, the door of ijtihad was opened, leading to the situation where the Prophet of Islam imposed zakat on nine things, and Ali (PBUH), when he came to power, imposed zakat on horses as well. Therefore, neither in the conduct and tradition of the Prophet nor in the rulings of the Quran is there eternity. Gradually, Arab customs, tribalism, and patriarchy dominated Islam, and male scholars, along with the exclusion of women from areas like jurisprudence, which was not inherent to Islam and Islam has no prohibition against it, combined to gradually confront us with a patriarchal jurisprudence that you see today. Does your statement mean that the Quran text can be changed? I do not want to enter this topic. Because we have had programs about this topic. The Quran text cannot be changed. My questions pertain to the Quranic text, which is the sacred text of Muslims. You mention the Prophet's conduct. In the conduct of the Prophet of Islam, you also see that he married a young girl, he had multiple wives, he had slaves, and these are issues that today pose questions for a Muslim individual and these questions should be answered. One should not just say that well, it was 1400 years ago, and now it is no longer relevant, and therefore these questions are no longer valid. Nik-Ain: One of the sources of ijtihad is the Quran, and another source of ijtihad is the tradition of the Prophet. You want to make a moral judgment about what the Prophet said or did 1400 years ago, which one of them is marrying a young girl, according to your interpretation, which the essence of that marriage has not been established, something that was the norm 1400 years ago. Can we issue a judgment about the immorality of the actions of the issuers and drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they did not grant women the right to vote? In the same America where we live, women achieved the right to vote only after a long movement and campaign. Should we say that the founding fathers were misogynistic? No, it was the moral norm of that time. Very well, Mr. Nik-Ain, please allow us to return to Mr. Nafisi. Mr. Nafisi, some critics of the family institution in Islam fundamentally say that this institution is not defined based on love, understanding, and companionship of a couple. It is defined merely as an economic institution and is classified under transactions. How can this be explained? Nafisi: Yes. First, ijtihad in the text is not possible. In some minor matters, it can be ijtihad, and if it were so easy to ijtihad, the situation of the Islamic country and women, etc., would be better than this. Secondly, if you introduce relativity into religion, then nothing remains of religion. In response to you, we see that a little bit of custom, a little bit of tradition, and a little bit of the text itself have caused the relationship between men and women in modern society to be distorted. With the power that is assumed for men in marriage, which is mentioned in the Quran and everywhere, [the relationship has been distorted] and gentlemen also stated that men are responsible for women. It is as if women are minors or dependents, and gentlemen must take care of them. If we consider a marriage that is occurring in the twenty-first century, [this marriage should be based on] emotional connection, mutual respect, and love. For example, we see that 94% of Americans marry for love, while in India, for example, it is 51%, and in Muslim countries, it is even less than that. The relationship that modern society demands from women and men is that they work together, and no one is responsible for anyone else, and they work together and raise children and live together based on understanding. The institution of family that Mr. Nik-Ain mentions is not at all relevant. The institution should be based on power balance, understanding, and love, and now, of course, one could also argue that yes, fifty percent of American marriages also end in divorce because they have too high expectations of love and understanding, but in the context of marriage in Iran, in eight cases, women are less than men, and in eight cases, men's power is greater, and to balance this power, there should be a dowry. This itself is a significant factor of conflict and disruption of human relationships. Virginity enters the issue. This is the reality today. The reality of 1400 years ago, whatever it was. Nik-Ain: First of all, see, the analysis of Islam is the analysis of responsibility and recognizing the individual as responsible in contrast to another discourse, which is now the modern discourse or whatever name it is, which is based on pleasure. It is neither based on love nor on other things. In the same America, 90% marry for love, and out of every 10 American men, 6 men have girlfriends while having a wife... the same temporary marriage that we also have in Islam, of course... Nik-Ain: Yes. Very well. Very well, you have it in Islam. So the problem is not in Islam that it tells you this. My point is that the ideal of building and fantasizing about today's civilization does not solve any of our problems with Islam. Ultimately, when a man does not enter into a legal contract, he does not consider himself responsible. The crux of the discussion is whether we want to build a responsible individual in the family institution or an individual who acts based on pleasure and has been given the right to derive the utmost pleasure or, to use the terminology of 'utilitarians,' to gain the most personal benefit. Regarding responsibility, when the responsibility of a company is given to me, it does not mean that the other employees are minors and dependents. Providing for a woman is not just emotional support. Providing emotional support is one aspect. Economic support is another aspect. To the extent that you demand responsibility from a person, you also give them rights. In America, where do men have to be responsible for the details that Islam has asked of men regarding their women? Then where in Islam is the relationship only a relationship of power? If the Quran is to be read and it is said that the text and sacred text is, very well, we go to the Quran. Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21. What does God say? He says that among His signs is that He created for you from yourselves spouses so that you may find tranquility with them and placed love and mercy between you. Well, where is this only a relationship of power? Nafisi: First of all, the Quran, because the Arabic language has feminine and masculine pronouns, addresses entirely the masculine pronoun, meaning it addresses men. In fact, this does not indicate equality between the two sides; rather, it precisely confirms what these Abrahamic religions think about women and their power. As long as we try to justify these issues as Muslims like Mr. Nik-Ain, no reform will occur. We must accept that this problem exists. The problem is the same as that which began in the Old Testament, where the woman was the seducer of the man and caused him to be expelled from paradise. We must accept this, and when we accept it, we should think about correcting it. Just as, for example, Nasr Abu Zaid or Fatemeh Mernissi or Abdolkarim Soroush offer new interpretations that are very valuable, but it should be noted that when they present these interpretations, they acknowledge that there are problems and mistakes in the text. A very significant mistake that our friend has is that he says pleasure. What does pleasure mean? You equate love and understanding with pleasure. Those whom you referred to in European societies, when their pleasure is over, they leave, right opposite, women and men who live together in this way have a much longer relationship than traditional families. The fact that someone has a romantic relationship with another woman, this should be looked at in terms of statistics in Muslim countries, which is several times higher than here. Mr. Nik-Ain, I return to you with this question: If today a woman wants to marry a Muslim man, does she accept that he can have multiple wives, that he is qawwam, that there is a dowry, and maintenance... I mean, all of these are stated or unstated due to the laws derived from Sharia, and even if many Muslim men do not want to use these rights or do not accept them at all, the question is why such laws should exist, and how can a Muslim individual defend the existence of such a set of discriminatory laws in a religion they follow?