Published in the Florida Times Union, May 9, 2021.

by Parvez Ahmed

About a year ago, I received the devastating news about my Mom’s terminal cancer. As she took her last breaths, I could not visit her in Kolkata, India. The first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was underway. Global travel had come to a virtual standstill and India, like the rest of the world, was in the midst of lockdowns and quarantines. A year later, while the pandemic here at home is beginning to wane, in India it has metastasized into a carnage. The US State Department has urged Americans to not travel to India and a travel ban from India has now been instituted for non-US citizens. Once again, I am forced to cancel my summer travel plans to visit family in India.

Almost every Indian American I talk to knows someone, either a member of their extended family or someone from their circle of friends, who have been personally impacted by this new wave in India. The 7-day average of daily COVID-19 cases is over 400,000, not only the highest in the world today but also a number not seen anywhere in the past year. The 7-day daily average of deaths is over 3,000. As alarming as these numbers are, experts on the ground contend that the official daily new cases and deaths in India are a severe undercount.

In one of many examples, a crematorium in the capital New Delhi that receive 10 bodies a day during normal times, is now receiving over 100. Graveyards are running out of space too. If that is not dystopian enough, consider the daily “normal” scene of patients entering hospitals with their own oxygen cylinders in tow. Family members pumping someone’s chest as they gasp for air in a car parked outside the hospital as a scramble for bed ensues are not scenes from a M. Night Shyamalan movie.  As patients gasp for air, Indian social media is replete with people pleading for hospital beds or oxygen cylinders.

How did things turn so grave? The tale should be familiar to most Americans. It starts with a national leader in denial and engaging in wishful thinking. Recall on February 26, 2020, then US President Donald Trump boasting, “You have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.” Almost a year later, on January 22, 2021, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi boasted that atmanirbhar Bharat (a self-reliant India) has beaten back the pandemic. India’s ruling political party, Modi’s BJP, hailed the “visionary leadership of Prime Minister Modi” that has made India “victorious nation in the fight against COVID.”

This new wave in India was partly driven by a more transmissible variant but mostly due to Modi government’s negligence. Not only did Modi, much like Trump, engage in large political rallies during a pandemic, he also pandered to the religious establishment by allowing a major Hindu festival, which attracts millions, to go forward. With mask wearing nary in sight, the results were predictable. Cases exploded and the Indian health system collapsed. The Prime Minister who was prematurely boasting of a self-reliant India is now receiving generous donations from many countries, with the United States being a major benefactor. The Biden administration, rightfully understanding that the pandemic cannot be controlled if a major nation like India is on fire, is sending vaccines, large-scale oxygen generation units and N95 masks.

The generosity of the American people will undoubtedly be appreciated by my family, friends and untold millions. However, the challenge in India remains one of sane governance. Modi and his allies seem more worried about critical social media posts and editorials in foreign newspapers than about the plight of people gasping for air. Just as Trump made states fight for COVID-19 test kits, Modi has left the states in India to fend for themselves in securing supplies of vaccines. Even as a practicing physician, my father cannot secure a vaccine for himself much less his family. Following threats from “powerful people” the CEO of Serum Institute, India’s leading vaccine manufacturer, has fled to London.

Growing up in India, I have lived through many social traumas. But through it all, I have always found my family and friends resilient even in the face of overwhelming odds. But now I sense resignation and a foreboding of disaster. They feel powerless in the face of this incalculable tragedy. Dealing with this fatalism has only made matters worse for the Indian diaspora in America.

Parvez Ahmed was born in India and is professor of finance and director of diversity and inclusion at the Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida.

Growing up in India, I had taken India’s secularism for granted. Not just secularism of the state but also pluralism in society. It was not unusual for my Hindu friends to visit my home during Eids and I looked forward to visiting their homes during Pujas. Several of my family members married Hindus and although it did create moments of awkwardness, in general, things worked out well. I grew up witnessing religious riots all through the 70s and 80s but I never questioned India’s commitment to secularism. It was not until I journeyed to America and I looked back, I found India’s secularism to be flawed. A flaw that continues to be at the root of much social unrest.

Turkey and India are both democracies and significant American allies. Both India and Turkey are secular countries ruled by strong-willed leaders rooted in religion-based politics, Islam for Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hinduism for India’s Narendra Modi. Both leaders have shown an uncanny ability to galvanize popular support, although Modi recently suffered some setbacks (#BiharElections). And yet both of them have failed to heal their nation’s religious and ethnic divides. Now their divisive politics threaten to tear apart the social fabric of their country. India and Turkey are hardly alone in the rise of illiberal democracies but given their pivotal roles in global trade and security, their lurch towards illiberalism ought to elicit concern.

It’s been nearly two decades since Fareed Zakaria wrote his seminal article, “The Rise of the Illiberal Democracy” where he contended that democracy without free and fair elections, the rule of law, separation of powers and basic civil liberties afforded to all citizens of the country, is simply, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, “a tyranny of the majority.” In an illiberal democracy the sheer weight of the majority stifles dissent. This description is not only apt for Putin’s Russia but also for Modi’s India and Erdogan’s Turkey. And yet unlike Russians, both Indians and Turks remain more in control of their destinies, so long as they can muster the strength to transcend their parochialisms, primarily anti-Kurdish in the case of Turkey and anti-Muslim in the case of India.

The World Press Freedom Index places India 136 and Turkey 149 out of 180 countries. Writing about Turkey, the report notes that from 2012 to 2014 Turkey ranked 154 out of 180 but slightly improved its standing in 2015 because it conditionally released 40 journalists but “who nonetheless continue to face prosecution and could be detained again at any time.” Freedom of information in Turkey has declined because “cyber-censorship, lawsuits, dismissals of critical journalists and gag orders.” India’s low ranking stems from the daily abuses journalists face while trying to do their job, rising internet censorship and the political partisanship of India’s media.

As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarks on his trip to UK this week, over 200 noted authors have asked British Prime Minister David Cameron to raise the issue of the rising climate of intolerance and fear in India. This comes in the wake of wide ranging protests in India from artists, filmmakers, scientists, actors, scholars who have not only voiced concerns about intolerance but have also taken the extraordinary step of returning (wapsi) many of the prestigious awards they received(#awardwapsi). They did so as rumors have generated mob frenzy against writers and vulnerable minorities with muted reactions from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Just few weeks ago a Muslim man was lynched to death by a mob after spurious rumors spread that the man’s family had consumed and stored beef at their home. Cows are considered sacred by Hindus but generally Indians have been tolerant towards others who consume beef. However, the debate over imposing a ban on cow meat was resurrected recently when the ruling party introduced wide-ranging ban on the sale and consumption of beef in the right-leaning state of Maharashtra. Atop BJP politician recently said, “Muslims can continue to live in this country, but they will have to give up eating beef.” In addition, an Indian scholar, who happens to be an atheist, was killed after he criticized idol worship as a “meaningless ritual.”

In Turkey intolerance is different in nature but similar in essence. A small but influential group of Muslim social activists, pejoratively called Gulenists but self-described as the Hizmet movement, have been singled out for crackdown with little due process or evidence for their alleged crimes. Media outlets, often critical of the government and with ties to the Hizmet have been shut down and if allowed to operate have been intimidated by arresting leading journalists and unlawfully raiding their offices. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) have accused certain media enterprises of establishing a “parallel” state although very little evidence supports such assertion. The country’s judiciary has become a puppet. Recently a public prosecutor accused the head of the Hizmet movement, Pennsylvania based cleric Fethullah Gulen, of leading a criminal organization including operating an armed terror group. Gulen whose life has been devoted to dialogue among faith communities and excellence in secular education ought to be celebrated as a modern day King and Gandhi not ostracized as a pariah to a country for whom he professes great love. The fact that the crackdown on the Gulen-followers came after corruption scandal implicating Erdogan and his family, which Erdogan blamed as a Gulen conspiracy, is enough to tarnish the efficacy of Turkish democracy.

But nothing is more troubling than the way Turkey continues to handle the Kurdish issue much the same way India continues to play politics with Kashmir. Both the Kashmiris and the Kurds have suffered from state brutality that has then led to violence and terrorism. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict since the 1980s has led to over 40,000 deaths while the Indian-Kashmiri conflict has led to over 47,000 deaths. Although Erdogan did not start the Kurdish conflict but he has used the issue in the most cynical of ways. Promising dialogue at one point but resorting to violence after his party lost its parliamentary majority just a few months ago.

Both India and Turkey boasts large minority populations where nearly 1 in 5 people belong to a religious or ethnic minority. In Turkey, Kurds are often arrested under the pretext of national security. While in India arbitrary arrests of Muslims in terrorism cases are quite common. In Turkey, the military commits human rights violations in Kurdish areas while in India, the military does the same in not only Muslim-majority Kashmir but also in the Indian Northeast, home to many minority ethnic groups.

From the undermining of media, the stifling of dissent and marginalization of minorities, both India and Turkey at the height of their economic successes are threatening to not only undo their progress but also attempting to spark a backlash that can boomerang into greater regional conflict. President Obama has forged a personal relationship with both Erdogan and Modi. At the upcoming G20 summit in Antalya, Turkey he should make deteriorating human rights an important part of his conversation with both Erdogan and Modi. In addition, the American diaspora which boasts of significant number of supporters for both Modi and Erdogan should play the role of healers. Pro-AKP Turkish groups should engage with Gulen-followers and the pro-BJP Indian diaspora should reach to those who express deep angst about the growing intolerance in India. It is important that all Indians and Turks make a commitment to uphold the pluralistic and secular nature of the founding ideals of both Turkish and Indian democracy.

Follow Parvez Ahmed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/parvezahmed

Is South Asia becoming a beacon for democracy? On the heels of an inspiring voter turnout in Afghanistan, voters in India are mobilizing in one of the most impressive exercises in universal adult franchise. Just a few months earlier, Pakistan had its first peaceful democratic transition in power. Bangladesh, surprisingly, was an outlier when the ruling party swept back into power via a non-election election. A boycott by the opposition led to a majority of the ruling party members being elected unopposed. Despite this, the general trend in South Asia is positive, with India once again leading the way.

In India, this year, an estimated 814.5 million people are eligible to vote. This is up from 713 million voters in 2009, representing an impressive 14 percent increase, with the largest increase in voter registrations coming from younger Indians. Elections will be held in 28 Indian states and 7 union territories. Two national political parties are in contention — the Indian National Congress (INC), established in 1885 and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), established in 1980. There are well over 50 regional or state political parties, some of them splinter groups from the national parties, and others independently organized. However, it is the regional parties that will collectively decide the fate of the next Indian government as the neither of the national parties will win the majority of the seats being contested. Indian politics is increasingly Balkanized and a national election is really an amalgamation of many regional elections. Since 1989, no single political party has mustered a clear majority in any national election.

In its 16th general election, Indian voters will elect 543 out of the 545 seats of the lower house of parliament, called the Lok Sabha or People’s House. National elections take place once every five years unless the ruling party calls for an early vote or loses the confidence of a majority of its members. The Lok Sabha will select the prime minister, who is the head of government.

The Indian Election Commission, a constitutional body independent of the government, conducts the election. The campaign season mercifully lasts only eight weeks, although voting in some states can begin as early as two weeks after the official opening of the campaign season. Ballots are cast electronically over six weeks, from April 7 to May 12 this year, in nine phases. In the three phases completed thus far, voter turnout has been higher than the expected 60 percent. Results will not be announced until all regions have completed voting.

The Election Commission is required to have a polling place within 1.2 miles of every voter. To fulfill this mandate requires 10 million polling officials and security personnel in 930,000 polling stations. Election day in each region is a paid holiday for all non-essential workers. Even part-time workers are granted paid leave fulfilling an Election Commission mandate that every eligible voter shall be given the proper means to fulfill their right.

Indian democracy faces some of the same challenges that our American democracy faces, from the corrosive influence of money to the problem of incumbency. However, unlike the US, 75 percent of the source of funds to Indian political parties is unknown, according to the Association of Democratic Reform. Of the sources that are known, 87 percent of the funding comes from the corporate sector or business houses. In India where the average per capita income is a shade over Rs. 50,000 ($830), the largest donors lavished money on the political parties to the tune of several million dollars. Industrialist Aditya Birla’s group gave Rs. 360 million to INC and Rs. 260 million to its rival BJP.

The Association of Democratic Reform also reports that the average candidate owned Rs. 50 million worth in assets. In the last Lok Sabha, the average wealth of a member of parliament was Rs. 100 million. The average Indian will have to live longer than Noah to achieve these levels of wealth gains. More alarmingly, 30 percent of the candidates have a criminal case against them. India’s National Election Watch announced that of the 162 parliamentarians involved in 306 criminal cases, 76 are charged with serious crimes like murder, attempted murder and kidnapping.

The nationalist and Hindu fundamentalist BJP party is likely to muster enough seats to form a coalition government with Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister. Indians are poised to give the religious right yet another chance mainly because the secularist INC has failed to deliver on their promise of equitable economic growth and are now mired in many corruption scandals. After growing at 8 percent a year, the Indian economy has slowed down to a 5 percent rate of growth. Narendra Modi, who is head of the Indian state of Gujarat, has delivered above average economic growth for his state and projects to replicate this success all across India. His slogan toilets before temple have given hope to many that he will keep his fundamentalist roots subservient to his pro-business credentials.

Modi has a checkered past. He failed to stop mob violence against the Muslim minority in his state that lead to the death of over a thousand people with many more displaced. This is the primary reason Modi has been denied entry into the United States for nearly a decade now. About 16,000 Muslims displaced in the communal riots of 2002 still remain in relief colonies where they are denied even the most basic amenities. While Modi boasts of his state’s impressive economic growth he blames “vegetarianism and figure-conscious Gujarati girls” as the reason his state ranks high on malnutrition. Nearly half the children below the age of five suffer from malnutrition and nearly 70 percent children in Modi’s ‘Shining Gujarat’ suffer from anemia.

Modi’s religious fundamentalist roots are worrisome for women in India, who are increasingly the target of male chauvinism often emanating for religious fundamentalists. According to Human Rights Watch, women during the communal riots of 2002 Gujarat were stripped, gang-raped, then burned or hacked to death. Indian women are worried that violence against women will not receive the priority it should in the wake of several high profile rape cases. In Gujarat there are 918 women for every 1000 men. This is below the national average of 940, perhaps suggesting a high level of female infanticide in Gujarat.

Indians are caught between a rock and hard place. On one hand they desperately want the government to re-ignite India’s economic growth. And yet the party with the most pro-business credential is also cloaked in anti-modern social views that will further disadvantage India’s struggling minorities and women. Modi’s slogan, toilets before temples, sounds good but the fact that temples come ahead of improving social cohesion, should make Indians nervous. We have seen plenty of examples around the world where religious fundamentalists capitalized on the economic failure of the secularists but once in power they drifted rightward leaving the country more divided. Modi may turn around India’s economic performance but at what cost to the poor, the minority and the disenfranchised, remains a question and concern.

“No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live”― Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan.

The first step to solving any problem is to recognize that there is one.

GENDER EQUITY GAP ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD

The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap 2013 Report shows wide disparity in Muslim majority countries between men and women across for key areas of health, education, economics and politics. No Muslim majority country cracks the top 10 in gender equity. At the bottom end, 9 out of 10 countries are Muslim majority. Income level hardly explains such poor rankings. Among high income nations, 8 out of 10 bottom ranked countries are Muslim majority. Despite enormous wealth, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE have been unable to sufficiently close the gender gap. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, almost all of which happen to be Muslim majority, ranks last below the less affluent Sub-Saharan Africa.

Yet the news is not uniformly bad. According to the World Bank, gender gap across MENA is reducing. Today more women than men attend universities and women mortality during childbirth is significantly below global averages. But despite progress in education and health, women are not empowered either economically or politically. Women account for only a quarter of the labor force, while in the rest of the world women workforce is about fifty percent. In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan youth unemployment rates among women is twice that of men. More women are being educated but few have opportunities to start a career of their choice. Moreover, women hold only 9 percent of the seats in parliaments.

Faced with such dismal statistics, some countries such as Tunisia mandated that an equal number of women and men run as candidates on their electoral list. As a result women have secured one-quarter of the seats in Tunisia’s constituent assembly. In Bangladesh and Pakistan affirmative action has allowed women to account for nearly twenty percent of the parliamentary seats. In contrast, millions of women turned out to vote in the Egyptian parliamentary elections but, ultimately, made up only two percent of the lower house of parliament.

The anti-modern attitudes of many hardline Islamic preachers and the less the egalitarian vision of the Islamists only exacerbates the problem of gender inequity. For example, the fundamentalist, Darul Uloom Deoband seminary in India, issued a fatwa barring women from working as receptionists. While in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood, prior to its ouster, tried to undermine the work of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in stopping violence against women. This in a country where lack of women’s rights is endemic as evidenced by 8 in 10 Egyptian women reporting being sexually harassed. In Pakistan, after a video surfaced showing a teenage girl being flogged by the Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami dismissed such reports as being a “Western conspiracy” and the beating incident a “small thing.”

AMERICAN MUSLIM EXPERIENCE

In the US, there are no formal studies about gender gap in the Muslim community. However, the Women and the American Mosque study from Hartford Institute, shows that despite greater religious, social and economic freedoms in America, only 18 percent women attend Friday prayers and this percentage attendance has not changed in over a decade. Only 6 in 10 mosques have at least one woman on their board and 13 percent of mosques do not allow women to serve on their boards. Only 14 percent mosques scored “excellent” for being women-friendly. Compared to the rest of the world, American Muslim women enjoy greater empowerment but accessibility to places of worship and leadership in Islamic organizations continue to be an issue.

Among big-5 American-Muslim organizations (ISNA, MAS, CAIR, ICNA, MPAC), only one (MPAC) has more than two women serving on their boards while one (MAS) has none. One national organization (ICNA) did not list the names of its board members or executives on their national website. It is unclear how many women, if any, serve on ICNA’s leadership teams. Only one (ISNA) has elected a woman to its top leadership positions. Women representation on boards of American Muslim organizations is quite anemic. With the notable exceptions of Muslim Advocates and ING, none of the major national American Muslim organizations are led by a woman in executive capacity. In contrast, the younger generation has proved more progressive. The Muslim Student Association elected a female to its top position long before any other national American Muslim organization.

One influential American imam recently noted, “Based on the few studies that we have about Muslims in America, we know that 12-18% of Muslims in the United States experience physical abuse, and 30-40% experience emotional abuse.” These numbers almost mirror the rates in the general American population. Gender issues ought to receive more attention. In London a group calling itself Imams Against Domestic Abuse have issued a report titled, “The End to Hitting Women” stating, “Under no circumstances is (such) abuse against women, in its various manifestations, encouraged or allowed in Islam.”

ISLAM AND GENDER EQUITY

The attitudes of many Islamic groups contravene normative Islam, which when taken holistically supports gender equity despite the presence of isolated texts that are mistaken as relegating women to subservient roles. Chapter 4, Verse 1 from the Quran notes, “People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate.” This verse along with 7:189 and 42:11 assert without any ambiguity that men and women have the same spiritual nature and they are created out of a single soul (nafsin wahida) and our mates (azwaja) are a part of us (min anfusikum).

The Quran states that both genders are recipients of the “divine breath” since they are created with the same human and spiritual nature, “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit (15:29).” Given that both men and women have the same spirit thus it is only natural that the Quran obligates them to the same religious and moral duties and responsibilities. In 3:195 the Quran states, “I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female, each is like the other.” And in 4:124 the Quran notes, “If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith they will enter paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them.” And finally 33:35 notes, “For men and women who are devoted to God– believing men and women, obedient men and women, truthful men and women, steadfast men and women, humble men and women, charitable men and women, fasting men and women, chaste men and women, men and women who remember God often– God has prepared forgiveness and a rich reward.”

The repeated and separate references to men and women, was a radically progressive idea at the time when the Quran was first revealed. Why the special emphasis on the female gender? To inform patriarchal societies, to which Prophet Muhammad first preached, that fulfilling the grand purpose of Islam requires justice and fairness towards both men and women. Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph in Islam, is reported to say, “By God, we didn’t use to think that women had anything until God revealed about them what He revealed in the Qur’an, and distributed to them what He distributed.” This statement shows that the Quranic message was a radical departure from the gender norms in sixth and seventh century Arabia.

The Quranic message was transformative with respect to gender equity, at least among the first generation of Muslims. The first person to believe in the message of Prophet Muhammad was a woman, his first wife Khadija. Two of Prophet Muhammad’s wives, Ayesha along with Umm Salama are among the greatest narrators of Prophetic traditions. Much of what Muslims practice today is transmitted via the scholarship of these two great women. Asma Afsaruddin in her book, “The First Muslims: History and Memory” notes that another women companion, Nusayba bint Kaab, was celebrated for her military skills as she took part in the battles of Uhud, Khaybar, Hunayan and al-Yamama and she was present at the signing of the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah. As a combatant in Uhud, she is said to have sustained wounds on her body while defending the Prophet. Praising her valor, Prophet Muhammad said her position on the battlefield that day was unsurpassed by anyone else, man or woman.

The most sacred place on earth for Muslims, Makkah (Mecca), was founded by Hajar, the wife of Abraham. Her diligence and faith was as remarkable as that of her celebrated husband. It was she who had to face the desolate desert with no water, no shelter, and no food but with responsibilities for an infant baby. It was she who negotiates a deal with the tribe of Jurhum who wanted to settle down around the well of Zam-Zam. Hajar exhibits faith, fearlessness and independence. The first martyr in Islam was a woman, Sumayah. The world’s first academic degree-granting institution of higher education, which is still in operation today, the University of Qarawiyyin in Fes, Morocco, was established by a woman, Fatima al-Fihri.

These examples from the early history of Islam show women participating in every walk of societal life. They were not excluded from public life despite being part of a culture, which prior to Islam, was quite hostile to women. So what happens later? With the passage of time, the public space gained by Muslim women begins to recede. Islamic scholars, mostly male, begin to formulate opinions about women that were less informed by sacred texts and more reflective of their cultural norms. Contemporary scholars have shown that what often passes as religious legacy is in fact a historical product of male subjectivities, a problem that is not unique to Muslims.

CONTESTED READINGS

Dr. Jamal Badawi in his short book, “Gender Equity in Islam” makes the following observation, “Nowhere does the Qur’an state that one gender is superior to the other. Some mistakenly translate “qiwamah” in 4:34 as superiority, when in reality it implies a greater degree of responsibility.” The aforementioned verse 34 in Surah an-Nisa (4) says, “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions.” The word “qawwamoona” in this verse has contested meanings. At-Tabari, who was lived only two centuries after the Prophet, conceptualized the relationship of qiwamah as being conditional upon the man being able to take care of the socio-economic needs of his wife. This cannot be generalized as any inherent superiority of men over women. In the Quran “qawwamun” is used three times and in all three occasions it is conjoined with the idea of justice and fairness. Thus, “qawwamun” gives limited and conditional right husbands to assume family leadership so long as their responsibilities are executed with justice and fairness.

Later in the same verse, 4:34, another word “waḍribuhunna” also has contested meanings. The verse reads, “And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them, then forsake them from physical intimacy, and then waḍribuhunna.”  The word waḍribuhunna is derived from the triliteral root ḍad ra ba, from which 55 verb forms result in the Quran. These verbs have wide variations in their meanings – from strike (idrib) to travel or put forth (darabu)  and yet Muhammad Asad translates waḍribuhunna as “beat them,” Yusuf Ali as “beat them (lightly)” and Pickthall as “scourge” and Thomas Cleary as “spank them.”

The fallacy of reading sacred texts literally is obvious. Literal reading causes words such as waḍribuhunna to be abused by some men to justify spousal abuse. Domestic violence is as much a real problem across the Muslim world as it is in other societies. World Health Organization says that violence against women is global health problem of epidemic proportions. In some Muslim majority countries the statistics are egregious. For example, in Pakistan, 80 percent of women reported experiencing domestic violence and 50 percent reported being physically battered. In Egypt, 85 percent of women report experiencing sexual harassment.

If waḍribuhunna is indeed beating and since hitting is criminal, does the Quran then sanction a crime on one hand and yet on the other hand speak about justice (qist) and mercy (rahma) as being the foundation of the relationship between a husband and wife? Such contradictions are inconsistent with the overall message of the Quran.

In Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon one of the definitions of daraba, the root to waḍribuhunna, is “to go away”. This then allows waḍribuhunna to have alternative meanings than the commonly understood “beat” or “strike.” Literally translating waḍribuhunna as “beating” contradicts the central Quranic message of fairness and mercy. Moreover, violence cannot be a cure for marital woes and thus any advice that suggests wife-beating as a way to marital bliss is absurd. In addition, there is no report that Prophet Muhammad ever struck or beat of his wives, even though he like most mortals encountered many marital challenges.

Contemporary Islamic studies scholar, Sadiyya Shaikh, notes that classical scholars such as At-Tabari and Ar-Razi both viewed 4:34 as a staged way to reduce marital conflicts in a culture where violence against women was rampant. At-Tabari went on to note that waḍribuhunna means striking without hurting. But Ar-Razi did not even allow that in his exegesis. He quoted a Prophetic saying stating that men who hit their wives are not among the better men. Ar-Razi suggested that 4:34 was not a license but a restriction on the prevailing male violence. Thus this verse is more descriptive of gender norms at the time of the Quranic revelation not prescriptive of how Muslims in contemporary times should practice spousal relations.

THE LIGHTNING ROD – HIJAB

There is an inordinate amount of obsession by both Muslim conservatives and by many non-Muslims (both on the far left and right), about a simple scarf on a woman’s head. Conservatives use hijab (or head covering) as a litmus test for a woman’s piety. Many non-Muslims view hijab as a sign of oppression. The Quranic verse suggesting hijab as sign of modesty for women actually starts with an admonishment to men, “Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…” (24:30) Men who flaunt such rules often turn around and blame the victim. One case in point, during the 2013 protests against Mohammed Morsi, during a four-day period ninety-one women were raped and sexually abused.

Like every other aspect of Islam, hijab is a choice. It is woman’s right to determine her own identity and it is her personal expression of devotion to God. It is between her and God. No compulsion can be used to wear or not wear hijab. The most important point about empowering women is to realize that they must be empowered to choose their own paths in life without fear, intimidation or coercion by anybody, neither the fiery mullah nor the radical liberal.

THE VISION OF ISLAM 

The goal in Islam is for believers to deepen their relationship with God. Social norms are a means to the goal of seeking nearness to God. In trying to deepen this relationship believers must strive to remove any spiritual obstacles that impede their path. The Quran notes God saying, “I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female (3:195)” and, “If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith they will enter paradise (4:124).”

Thus clearly, from the Quranic perspective, gender is no barrier to spiritual seeking. What then gives men the right to put hurdles in front of women when God places no such additional burdens on them?

An anecdote reported by Sadiyya Shaikh about Ibn Taymiyya and a woman named Umm Zaynab Fatima bint Abbas al-Baghdadiyya is illuminating. Umm Fatima was a spiritual leader, a jurist and provided practical legal responses to people’s questions. She studied with Ibn Taymiyya in Cairo during the fourteenth century. On one occasion Ibn Taymiyya praised Umm Fatima in public circles, not only for her intelligence and knowledge but also for her personal qualities of enthusiasm and excellence. Umm Fatima is known to have delivered public lectures in the mosque and this apparently troubled Ibn Taymiyya, “It unsettled me that she delivered lectures at the mosque and I wished to forbid her, he continued, “until one night I beheld the Prophet Muhammad in a dream and he rebuked me saying “This pious woman performs good works.”

The Muslim community is paying a price for not being able to shake off those cultural norms that have drowned out Islam’s egalitarian vision. Treating women with the inherent dignity that she was created with, ensuring that their rights are preserved and advocating that they are given equitable opportunities to succeed is necessary to uphold the Quranic vision, “O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding justice,” (4:135).  The way forward requires leveling the playing field, by changing hearts and minds, if possible, or by instituting affirmative actions, when antiquated cultural norms prove too intransigent.

The World Economic Forum asserts a simple truth, “Countries and companies can be competitive only if they develop, attract and retain the best talent, both male and female.” Not only governments need to do more, but so do businesses, civil society and media. Empowering women should be as much a man’s responsibility, as it is a women’s aspiration.

This article was adapted from a Friday Sermon delivered at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on December 13, 2103. 

Huffington Post, Nov 5. 2010

Also in Florida Times Union, Nov 12, 2010

On the heels of a bruising election, President Barack Obama is undertaking his longest foreign trip that will take him to several Asian countries including India. Some media accounts of this trip, primarily Fox News and its affiliates, has focused on an un-sourced report that erroneously suggested the President’s trip to cost $200 million per day. The fact is that the true costs of Presidential foreign trips are kept a secret for security reasons. The General Accounting Office, about a decade ago, had released one report on President Clinton’s foreign trips. It showed that the cost of such trips total in the tens of millions nowhere near the exaggerated figure of $200 million per day. The hullabaloo over such triviality is once again robbing Americans of an opportunity to engage in a civic dialogue about India and its strategic importance to America.

India is not just an exotic country thousands of miles away. The Indian diaspora in the U.S. is 2.7 million strong. Over a dozen Indian Americans are part of the Obama administration and two Indian Americans have been elected Governors. India is neither the caricature on NBC’s Outsourced nor the heartless gloom portrayed in Slumdog Millionaire. In his book The Argumentative Indian, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen presents a succinct description, “India is an immensely diverse country with many distinct pursuits, vastly disparate convictions, widely divergent customs and veritable feast of viewpoints.”

India is the world’s largest democracy. It is thus not coincidental that America, the world’s oldest democracy, shares a bond with India, which transcends economics. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton alluded to this by assuring the people of India that they “should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States.” The Obama administration has stated that it wants to deepen its relationship with India on four strategic areas — energy and climate change; economics, trade, and agriculture; education and development; and science, technology and innovation. And yet progress has been anemic.

Progress is complicated by a sluggish U.S. economy, particularly in the area of job creation. Politically it helps the President to rail against U.S. companies that outsource jobs to India but strategically such outbursts are not helpful. Outsourcing is not the reason why U.S. businesses, despite posting healthy profits, are not hiring. The fault lines remain in the banking and financial sector. Obsessing on the ills of outsourcing belies a pertinent fact that America is now the preferred destination for outsourcing. India is third. In 2007, 20% of InformationWeek 500 companies reported that they’ve taken back outsourced work. The recent rise of prosperity in India has dampened the lure cheap labor.

Beating up on outsourcing will only make Indians reluctant to open up their markets to American exports. President Obama has correctly identified exports as one of the major sources of new jobs in the U.S. The rising upper and middle class in India offers new opportunities to sell American products. This explains why the President has a large contingent of business leaders in tow. Companies such as Boeing, GE, Caterpillar and Harley-Davidson are all looking forward to seal large deals with their Indian counterparts. Hopefully, the President will be able to impress upon these businesses that such deals should ultimately generate employment in the U.S. The President’s legacy and reelection depends on such successes.

During this trip to India, President Obama is expected to visit the tomb of Mughal emperor Humayun, which was commissioned by his wife Hamida Banu in 1562. The tomb is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is precursor to the architecture and vision that inspired the Taj Mahal. By visiting this site, President Obama is giving a nod to India’s pluralistic history, a history shaped by a rich inter-religious and cultural interaction between Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. This is not to suggest that the interactions between the faith communities have always been egalitarian. But the somewhat natural tensions between the faithful did not prevent them from cooperating to create great art, music, literature and philosophy. Prior to the British colonial rule, India was the world’s economic superpower. Interestingly, Humayun’s tomb also connects India to Pakistan. For it is here that many Muslims took refugee during their arduous migration to Pakistan. The symbolism is powerful as America’s Af-Pak policy will partly hinge on the role India plays or does not play.

Disappointingly, President Obama will skip visiting the Golden Temple, the holiest site for Sikhs. To enter the temple, all male visitors are required to cover their heads. He fears that his head covering will be mistakenly linked to the persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Caving into fear-mongers only emboldens them. Sikhs have paid an unfair price for their mistaken identity. They have been targets of anti-Muslim discrimination. And a few days after 9-11, a Sikh was killed in Arizona by a man who mistook him for a Muslim.

There is a lot riding on Mr. Obama’s visit to India. Americans can and should hope that President Obama’s visit opens up new opportunities for badly needed exports. Indians are hoping that President Obama will support India’s bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, a step that will help solidify India’s ascendency on the world stage.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.