The Rights and Dignity of Women Before and After Islam

What impact did the emergence of Islam have on the rights and dignity of women? Did it lead to a reduction in their rights and dignity, or conversely, did it increase them? Was the practice of burying daughters alive common among Arabs, as many Muslim preachers and clerics have claimed, or was it an exception? Did Iranians lend the chador to Arabs, or did the practice of hijab become widespread among Iranians due to its religious obligation? What about polygamy? How did the emergence of Islam affect women's rights regarding property and inheritance? Have women's rights in these areas increased or decreased after Islam? Can we provide general and comprehensive answers to these questions, or do responses vary from place to place and country to country? Although these questions are not new, the February 1979 Revolution has led to more heated discussions among Iranians with differing views on these matters. However, to what extent is this kind of discussion conducive to Iran's development, which suggests that everything was good or better with the arrival of Islam, or conversely, that everything was good, better, or excellent before Islam? We discussed these questions with three guests on the program 'Views': Hassan Farishtian, a Shia cleric and religious scholar in Paris; Khodadad Reza Khani, a researcher and lecturer in ancient history at the University of Berlin; and Maryam Hamadi, a law graduate and social researcher in London. Mr. Farishtian, let's first address the issue of the prevalence of burying women alive before Islam, which has been a focal point of many Shia clerics' theological and promotional discussions in Iran. According to early Islamic traditions, how widespread was the phenomenon of burying women alive in the geography of Arab society? Was it a norm or an exception? Hassan Farishtian: Before I enter this discussion, I must say that my knowledge and understanding of issues before Islam are very limited, and I prefer to speak about issues related to the early Islamic period and after the emergence of Islam. Regarding burying alive, it appears from early Islamic sources, especially primary sources like the Quran, that this practice existed to a limited extent. The Quran refers to those who buried their children alive, and it mainly addresses financial issues. Specifically, there is a verse in the Quran that says: 'And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We provide for them and for you. Indeed, killing them is a great sin.' (Al-Isra/31). This indicates that there was a fear at some point in the early Islamic period, before the emergence of Islam, as these verses refer to those people and speak about them. At one point, they killed their children out of fear of hunger, and at another point, due to famine. This information is what we generally have from early Islamic sources, showing that before Islam, this act was performed to a limited extent. However, in narratives that examine this history, it is mentioned that after a war, a man named Qais ibn Asim had his daughter captured, and after the war ended, she did not return and stayed with the ruler of Iraq, Nu'man ibn Mundhir. This man swore that from then on, he would bury his daughters alive. His perspective was one of honor and shame regarding his daughters, and he decided to bury them alive, later repenting during the time of the Prophet and confessing to him that he had buried 12 or 13 of his daughters alive. Another point mentioned in the Quran is that they buried their daughters alive because they considered angels to be female and sacrificed their daughters as gifts to God to join the angels. It seems that the main issue was economic, and the subsequent justifications that arose in their time, such as the belief that they were akin to angels or the issue of honor, were excuses created later. However, after the emergence of Islam, it can be said that we no longer had examples of this practice. Mr. Reza Khani, what do you think? According to historical documents, how accurate are the narratives about the prevalence of burying daughters alive among Arabs, and to what extent has this been exaggerated? Khodadad Reza Khani: A significant part of this issue relates to the Islamic narrative about itself. The historical narrative that Islam presents, both in the Quran and in later writings, has always viewed the advent of Islam as a break from what preceded it, wanting to portray itself as a completely new religion that innovates and rejects everything that is generally considered ignorance. This can be debated regarding its correctness or incorrectness. However, it must create a break with what came before it. Various events that occurred before Islam are somewhat emphasized and exaggerated to demonstrate this break. Regarding this specific issue, we naturally have no reason to believe that it was as widespread as Mr. Farishtian mentioned. If this practice had occurred and ignorant Arabs were burying their daughters, the result would have been a significant decrease in the number of women in Arab society. When the number of women is low, since the number of men and women is roughly equal, the population would decrease. Therefore, it is natural that if one looks at this issue from a demographic perspective, it probably was very limited and likely related to specific circumstances, such as economic issues, and perhaps a couple of well-known cases occurred for which we do not have solid evidence. But those one or two famous cases might have been done by notable individuals or during a specific famine, and this became something exaggerated in Islamic historiography to show that we are a religion with laws that officially prohibit such wrongdoings. The simple answer is that it was probably very limited. Ms. Hamadi, some Iranians who are deeply upset by the defeat of Iranians against Arab conquerors argue that everything, including the attention to women's dignity and rights, was good before Islam, and that after Islam, Iranian women lost the rights they previously had, and their dignity diminished. On the other hand, Islamic proponents argue that Islam granted women more rights and dignity than before. What is your reaction, as a legal scholar and advocate for women's well-being, to this duality and longstanding disagreement and the way this issue is presented? Maryam Hamadi: The historical context has been addressed by both Mr. Farishtian from the perspective of early Islam and Mr. Reza Khani from the perspective of pre-Islamic history or ancient Iranian studies. We do not have many reliable and substantial pieces of evidence regarding what happened to women before Islam and what fate awaited them after Islam. Most importantly, what is our criterion for measuring the phenomenon of women's dignity and rights? Are we discussing a historical period when these events occurred, namely the emergence of Islam in Iran, or are we measuring this dignity and rights with modern global standards? I believe it is a technical mistake to use our current definitions of women's rights or dignity to discuss the time of the emergence of Islam in Iran and its expansion to other countries where Islam was not present. It seems to me that certain things may have changed that do not necessarily mean that the event was better or worse. Some things may have been local and changed, and society reacted to this change, showing this. Or, because the Islamic discourse has become a dominant discourse, and more than the Islamic discourse being problematic, this discourse of power has accompanied Islam, society seeks reasons to distance itself from it and reconstruct a historical memory or think that a better fate awaited it, and unfortunately, it has become this way. I believe it is important to see with what criteria we measure these rights and dignity. Mr. Farishtian, let's discuss the chador and hijab. Is the chador and strict hijab Iranian or Islamic? If it is Iranian, why does the Shia clergy feel that it enhances women's dignity and rights? If it is Islamic, what evidence and narratives support this assertion? Hassan Farishtian: You used two terms in your question, chador and hijab, in parallel. I think we should distinguish between chador and hijab in our response. Of course, I said strict hijab, not just hijab. Hassan Farishtian: Yes. If that is the case, this is actually a third matter. Regarding hijab, the principle of hijab is naturally Islamic, and in Islam, it is mentioned in some verses of the Quran and in Islamic narratives. Hijab comes from Islam. However, as you emphasized, regarding strict hijab, perhaps the strictest example of it is the chador or more extensive coverings. Where did this come from? I believe that hijab is a later matter. The sources we have from early Islam, with the Quran being our first source, and then hadith and history, do not encounter anything called chador in Islam. In other words, there is no such thing as chador in Islam. If I may, I would like to take a step back. In early Islam, hijab did not mean what it does today. The hijab that the Prophet of Islam invited women to was a type of covering, and that nudity and lack of covering were sometimes due to poverty. This was how women, due to their poverty, could not afford to cover themselves. You see, regarding some sins and crimes, it is said that you should provide food or clothing for individuals. For example, today in European society, clothing is not an issue. Clothing is accessible to everyone. However, in early Islam, some of what Islam emphasized for you to cover certain parts of your body and areas that should not be seen was more due to the fact that the hijab was a type of loincloth that men tied around their waists, and women perhaps draped a piece over their shoulders, and even their chests were visible. When they stood for prayer, parts of their bodies could be exposed during bowing and prostration. This was why instructions came that women should not stand in front during prayer. In fact, the discussion of covering that we present as legal hijab in early Islam was completely different. Over the course of history, this hijab evolved to what is now presented as chador in Iran, which can be said to have no Islamic reference or source. In Islam, the hijab that was mentioned consisted of two things: one was covering parts of the body that are considered intimate and private, and the second was preventing alluring adornments and cosmetics from tempting others, meaning men who are not the woman's husband. This was something that occurred in early Islam. Mr. Reza Khani, what do historical knowledge from ancient times reveal about the status of women's clothing before and after Islam? Khodadad Reza Khani: This issue is very complex. A part of the religious aspect of hijab, especially chador, which has regained religious meaning over several decades or centuries, particularly today in European countries as a sign of religious expression or identity, must be completely separated from the original issues of hijab and especially chador that you asked about. The essence of covering the body does not relate to issues of modesty, shame, or social or religious honor. It fundamentally does not relate to gender, whether male or female. In fact, when you go back to ancient times, even in Greece, it was more about displaying social class. Those who showed their bodies more were considered to belong to lower social classes. A person from a lower class had to work, or a man who had to work. Moreover, it did not necessarily relate to gender. These were people who could not wear cumbersome clothing. A man likely had a loincloth around his waist, and a woman probably had something around her waist to cover her breasts because they had to work. The higher you go in social class, the more important clothing becomes. For women, this indicates that you, who see me in the street, do not have the right to see me because you are not on my level to look at me. Generally, complete covering has been a way to mark social differences. I am a person whom you do not have the right to see. We even have this regarding men. There are Islamic narratives that Anushirvan and Khosrow Parviz, Sasanian kings, sat behind a curtain, and there was some distance between this curtain and the throne, and between this curtain and the people. The people could only hear the king's voice. Only a herald could see him. Thus, the idea of seeing someone...