Islamists, defined by AP as those who favor, “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam,” view their interpretation of Islam as Islamic, often to the exclusion of other point of views. In the West, an amalgam of ideologues, from the far-right conservatives to the libertarian atheists, also insist that any and all bad action by Muslims are derived from Islam and thus Islamic. Several years ago, I wrote an article questioning the authenticity of using the label “Islamic” to characterize otherwise secular functions such as politics, art or finance. Labels such as, Islamic Republic, Islamic Finance, or Islamic State, are an exercise in hubris arrogantly suggesting that whatever takes place under such banners is sanctioned by Islam. Islamic Finance, for example, may reflect certain values of Islam, but in practice it often violates the spirit of Islam, if not its letter.

The Arabic for “Islamic” is “Islamiyyah,” a word that is not found in the Quran. When opining on the permissibility or the impermissibility of any action, classical scholars of Islam eschewed using “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” as a label. They often opted for legalistic terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” to determine Islamicity. This legal paradigm allowed for nuances and contextualization. For example, drinking alcohol is impermissible in Islam but if life depended on its consumption then an impermissible action becomes obligatory, as saving life takes precedence. Thus, the binary worldview of “Islamic” versus “un-Islamic,” does not find support in the sacred texts of Islam. Ironically, the proliferation of the label “Islamic” is traceable to the Islamist identity movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islam, which sprang up in the post-colonial Muslim world.

In not labeling ISIS or ISIL as an “Islamic” group, President Obama was refusing to play into the narrative of the extremists, who are desperately trying to cloak their heinous actions with the legitimacy of Islam. To President Obama’s detractors, this was not viewed as either smart or strategic, but rather capitulation. If you cannot label the terrorists properly, how can you defeat them, so they howled? This argument over labels has distracted us from the real debate over ISIS – not what to call it but how to defeat it.

In a controversial article Atlantic’s Graeme Wood asserts that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” In the same article, Wood goes on to state that “nearly all” Muslims reject ISIS. How can something be “Islamic” if “nearly all” Muslims reject it? Wood’s main source to determine the religious authenticity of ISIS is Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar of Islam. The fact that Wood did not interview Muslim scholars of Islam to determine the authenticity of the “Islamic” credentials of ISIS, is a major omission. In addition, the only Muslims interviewed by Wood are fringe characters, such as the notorious British extremist Anjem Choudary, who despite claims that he motivated many British youth to join the Syrian war, remains free to give lengthy interviews to British newspapers and casually chat with American journalists in coffee shops. The Muslims interviewed by Wood who purportedly were providing the Islamic rationale behind ISIS, do not command any pulpit or lead any congregation. How can someone with no pulpit and no congregation become representatives of a religious faith practiced by 1.6 billion people?

Haykel notes that ISIS is reviving medieval interpretations of Islam. The fact that ISIS has to rely on anachronistic traditions of Islam certainly places them on the fringe of a modern-day Muslim, a fact that Wood does not adequately weigh when insisting that ISIS is Islamic. Thus ISIS is certainly not universally Islamic although it may rely on using words and images that suggests some tangential connection to Islam. ISIS is as much Islamic as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda is Christian.

Despite glaring weaknesses in his article, Wood perceptively points out important differences between ISIS and its parent al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda remains focused on hitting distant targets, such as the U.S., ISIS is mostly aiming to teach a lesson to “deviant” Muslims in the region and cleanse the land they control from any un-Islamic influence. In other words, ISIS is more of an existential threat to Muslims and Arabs in the region than they are to Western Europe and America. Moreover, ISIS unlike al-Qaeda espouses a brand of eschatology that favors an apocalyptic end-of-time clash between Islam and non-believers. Understanding this ideological underpinning is crucial, as Wood rightfully asserts. Thus, by avoiding characterizing ISIS as “Islamic,” President Obama is denying terrorists the comfort of thinking that the rest of the civilized world will indulge them in furthering their messianic visions. Any armed conflict with ISIS will have to be evaluated on the basis of security for the homeland and stability for the region, not on any messianic vision.

What ISIS wants is less important. They are a violent group that craves and revels in violence. No surprises. Defeating ISIS will depend more on understanding the factors that gave rise to them and less on how to label them. Without the US invasion of Iraq, there will be no ISIS. Without the disastrous post-war polices of de-Baathification, the Sunni minority would not have felt marginalized and gravitated towards their own Sunni devils (al-Qaeda) shunning the Shia devils, who as part of the government in Iraq, were just as brutal. Thus, the primary factor behind the rise of ISIS is a foreign occupation, a lesson that seems to be lost in the hullabaloo over how to label ISIS.

The second factor favoring the rise of ISIS is the repeated failures in governance. Without the failure of the Assad regime in Syria, there will be no space for ISIS to incubate. Not just Assad, but the dictators that have ruled across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have by-and-large failed to provide their citizens with good life. The UN Arab Development Report makes it clear that most of the nation-states in the region failed to make a smooth transition towards the new world order, which required both strong national identities and adherence to international charters. The lack of clear national identities is the result of forced repression of “cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity” that was a fact of life in the region. Pluralism remains an idea too foreign across much of the MENA region. As successive iterations in socialism, capitalism, democracy, and authoritarianism failed (sometimes due to internal follies and sometimes due to undue interventions by America and its Western allies), a “medieval” and thus out-of-context interpretation of Islam began to gain currency among the dispossessed. Islam is the solution, sounded plausible. Lack of human development (economic, social and political) is the root cause of terrorism, a narrative too often ignored in discussions about terrorism in the name of Islam.

But can Islam itself be absolved? Islam like other ancient faith traditions is replete with multiple and even contradictory interpretations, particularly in the realm of social contracts. Taking stock of Islam’s history of development and progress, one can easily detect interpretations that range from accommodationist (accepting of differences) to separationist (positing Muslim exceptionalism and apartheid). The fact that a small band of thugs and criminals are banding towards a separationist camp, is hardly a revelation. However, the fact that thugs now control vast swaths of land and have the capacity to inflict so much violence cannot be trivialized either. Thus, Muslim scholars, leaders and activist should challenge ISIS on their core ideology and discredit their interpretations as invalid and out-of-context. So far, this has not been done at a sufficiently large scale to make any difference.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, a transnational body made up of 57 Muslim majority countries had instituted an observatory for Islamophobia but none to study and debunk extremism in the name of Islam. Muslim groups in the West routinely publish reports on Islamophobia, which is an important problem to be addressed, but so far have not researched and debunked the twisted ideology that undergirds the deranged violence of those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam. While ISIS is producing slick magazines and engaging in impressive social media campaigns (one report suggested 45,000 Twitter accounts by ISIS supporters), the Muslim apex bodies either governmental such as the OIC or non-governmental civic advocacy groups such as CAIR in the US or MCB in UK have not developed any comparable campaign to discredit and marginalize the fallacious ideology that ISIS and their ilk propagate. Neither condemnations by Muslim groups nor dropping bombs by Western and Arab governments is sufficient to defeat ISIS. Security operations and statements of condemnations have to go hand in glove with exposing and discrediting the corrosive ideology being propagated by ISIS.

The debate over labels is thus a red-herring. The call for more condemnations by Muslims often masks ugly stereotyping presuming that Muslims have a monopoly on religious violence. Furthermore, increased militarization as solution is being tone deaf to the lessons from history. The real solution remains the same today as it was after 9/11 – reversing the downward spiral of human development across MENA. President Obama has asked Muslims to do more and certainly more can be done to debunk the ideology of ISIS. But President Obama has fallen short of laying out how he and his Western allies will nudge governments across MENA to speed up reforms that are necessary to give people in the region hope thus giving them less reason to buy into the messianic apocalyptic vision of ISIS.

I admire Charlie Hebdo for standing up against threats to free speech, but I am saddened to see them pay such a heavy price for their beliefs. Cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones, remain vital for a healthy civil society. Only the deranged are threatened by them. Charlie Hebdo wanted to spread a little laughter, albeit in ways that are were often distasteful and provocative.

The killers in Paris did not nothing to defend Islam’s Prophet. They made the faith of 1.6 billion look like a murderous cult that views beheadings, bombings, kidnappings, and mass killings as religiously sanctioned response to grievances. They forget that the pen is mightier than the sword. The very Prophet whose name they are purportedly defending said, “The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

It is indeed heartening to witness Muslim leaders condemn the barbarism in Paris that killed the editor of Charlie Hebdo and several of its cartoonists. The killers also gunned down two policemen, one of whom happened to be Muslim. However, beyond the condemnations lurks a murky question: Why is some of the most egregious violence being repeatedly carried out in the name of Islam? Charlie Hebdo had offended Jews, Christians and a myriad of political leaders. Why did only Muslims lash out in such a violent manner? Certainly Muslims have no monopoly on deranged individuals.

Imams and Muslim leaders have usually responded by asserting that such killers do not represent “real” Islam. While a modicum of truth is indeed inherent in this argument, it does not illuminate the situation. While many acts of violence are being perpetrated in the name of other faiths, by actors ranging from Christian militias in Africa to Buddhist monks in Burma, the acts of violence in the name of Islam shock the conscience like no other. The gunning down of cartoonists, the beheading of journalists, the bombing of schools — all are headlines from just the last two months!

The rage sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora is indeed rooted in the pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. This culture is exasperated by a sense of perpetual victimhood that undergirds the narrative of most Islamist groups. (Islamists are defined as those who use Islam as a fundamental pillar of their politics.) Psychologists define victimhood as a mentality that makes one feel powerless to affect their own circumstances, so for every wrong suffered, they blame and lash out at others. While many Islamists are engaged in peaceful political struggles, their fanning of victimhood often triggers violence, particularly among the marginalized victims.

The grievances of the Islamists and their militant counterparts overlap. Both groups dream about the establishment of a utopian society with Islam and Muslims at the top of the totem pole. However, the peaceful Islamists and the militants differ in their means of achieving this goal. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami want to transform society into voluntarily accepting Shariah as the law of the land. Militants such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS want to implement Shariah by brute force and feel no moral outrage at the idea of killing others to achieve their goals.

Even moderate Islamists such as the AKP in Turkey seem threatened by free speech. In recent months the Turkish government has jailed journalists, cartoonists and even children who allegedly mocked the president. In Saudi Arabia a blogger was publicly flogged for allegedly insulting Islam. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used as tool of political oppression. Such intolerance often gives way to the violence of extremists as the distinction between peaceful advocacy and deranged violence is too easily blurred because not enough commitment has been made to the principles of nonviolence, neither by the state nor by the Islamists. Even amongst the Muslim diaspora in the West, free speech and freedom of religion struggle to find unequivocal acceptance.

It is ironic that the very week that this heinous political violence erupts in Paris also marks the release of the epic film Selma, which chronicles the transformative power of nonviolence in the face of state violence. The Prophet Muhammad urged his followers to never be afraid of learning something useful and beneficial, even from those who do not share their faith.

Therefore it is time to look beyond condemnation. It is time for Islamists to unequivocally embrace nonviolence and distance themselves from all forms of militancy in the name of Islam. It is time for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia to open up their societies to free speech and free exercise of religion. It is time for Muslim democracies such as Turkey to end their paranoid attacks on freedom of the press. It is time for Islamic republics like Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy laws. It is time for Muslim imams to lead their flocks in recognizing free speech and free exercise of religion as integral part of Islam. It is time for Western societies to stop asking Muslims what they feel every time radicals perpetrate yet another spectacular act of violence. Only then will “Je suis Charlie” find real meaning.

http://www.wjct.org/fcc-july-07-2014/

After giving the Muslim Brotherhood only a year in office, why did the Egyptian public turn against them? A New York Times article stated that before Morsi’s ouster there was erosion in support for the Brotherhood even in traditional strongholds. This was due to, “confusing economic policies of the Brotherhood-led government.” Another popular complaint against Morsi was that the Brotherhood was, “focusing too exclusively on his (their) Islamist base.”

The first complaint stems from the Brotherhood’s lack of governing experience. However, the second complaint is more foreboding as they go to the heart of the trouble with Islamist politics. Ambivalence about pluralistic values undermines democracy.

The Associated Press (AP) defines Islamists as, “advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” AP’s definition is useful but unsatisfying as it fails to distinguish between those who want the values of Islam to inform laws and those who want to impose their parochial interpretations of Shariah (the moral code and religious law of Islam). Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the Middle East and North Africa and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in South Asia want the latter.

In contrast, other political forces in the Muslim world, such as the National Forces Alliance in Libya, favor laws to be guided by the values of Islam but do not wish to impose Shariah. This puts them squarely with the majority. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in “Who Speaks for Islam?” noted that “having an enriched religious/spiritual life” is an important priority for Muslims. Majorities in most Muslim countries want Shariah to be “a” not “the” source of legislation. This seems to be no different from the aspirations of a Christian majority country such as the United States. In 2006, Gallup Poll showed 46 percent of Americans saying they want the Bible to be “a” source of legislation.

The upsurge in support for Islamist politics is the confluence of two trends – a repudiation of the disastrous policies of past regimes and a growing view among Muslims that Shariah can be an effective bulwark against the oppressive corruption and monopolization of power by the elite. A recent Pew Poll shows that clear majorities support implementation of Shariah. However, Muslims do not have a unified understanding of what Shariah means in practice. In addition, the survey finds, “most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society.” Muslims favor democracy, symbiotic coexistence with others and a system of governance that best reflects their own ethical values. Islamists like the ruling secularists they deposed have not been able to translate this aspiration into effective governance.

How to reconcile the desire for Shariah with the erosion in support for Islamists? The realpolitik of the Islamists that has left many disillusioned. In Egypt, the MB had left the powers of the military unrestrained, much to the chagrin of the Tahrir revolutionaries. In Libya, MB was viewed as pawns of foreign powers such as Qatar. In Bangladesh, the JI has been viewed with suspicion because of anecdotal accounts of their past collaboration with the Pakistani army in slaughtering hundreds of fellow countrymen during Bangladesh’s war of liberation. In Pakistan, the chief of JI described Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban a martyr.

In Turkey, the conservative AKP came to power as a result of the failures of the secular elite in ensuring broad economic prosperity. During its first two terms AKP succeeded by delivering stunning economic results. All that has begun to crumble as the AKP is now embroiled in corruption scandals and have begun to push conservative social policies going so far as to suggest how many children women should have. AKP’s foreign policy is in shambles. A recent headline in the influential Foreign Policy summed it best, “How Turkey Went From ‘Zero Problems’ to Zero Friends.”  AKP’s growing unpopularity even with religious conservatives, such as the influential Fetahullah Gulen, may represent a turning point in not only Turkish politics but Islamist politics globally.

The twentieth century marked the rise of political Islam, from Jamaat-e-Islami in the South Asia to Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and North Africa. But once in power the Islamists, with the exception of the early period of AKP rule, have proven to be ineffective. They are prone to the same abuse of power that characterized the ruling elites they deposed. From Egypt to Bangladesh Muslims are increasingly uneasy. Beyond their utopian slogans that “Islam is the solution,” there is little track record and consensus about how to practically implement Shariah in a way that will deliver economic and social justice for all people. Islamists need to espouse a more secular vision that is inclusive of all people and not subservient to their base. Secularists need to spiritualize their politics by espousing public policies that better reflect the public’s aspiration that fulfill the objectives of Shariah. Politicization of Shariah and Shariahization of politics are a disservice to the faith of Islam and they have proven to be divisive thus far.

This article first ran on Turkey’s leading English daily, Today’s Zaman.

“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. 

In 2011, along with millions of people around the world, I was mesmerized by the peaceful popular uprisings in Tahrir Square that eventually led to the end of three decades of dictatorial rule in Egypt. As the youth cheered, I felt solidarity in declaring “we are all Egyptians now.” I cannot say the same now. Two years ago Egyptians rejoiced in unison as the birth of people’s power seemed possible. Today many of the same people seem apathetic to army bullets killing fellow Egyptians.

Long before the General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi forcibly removed Mohammed Morsi from the Presidency, Egyptian society was descending into a spiral of polarization. A poll conducted in May of 2013 by the Arab American Institute showed that more than 90 percent of those who identified with the Islamists said they were “better off” than five years ago. However, more than 80 percent of those associated with the opposition and the “disaffected plurality” claimed that they were “worse off.” Among those Egyptians not affiliated with either the Islamists or their opposition only one percent claims that they are better off today while 83 percent perceived that they are worse off. And yet such disaffection does not justify a coup d’etat, which has only exasperated polarization not resolved it.

The Egyptian military is like a hammer that sees every political problem as an existential security nail. So predictably, knowing only how to wield a hammer, they resorted to solving a political problem by hammering a nail into the coffin of democracy. And while they did so, many Egyptians cheered, unfazed by irony that they were essentially burning the village to purportedly save it.

While the military is blameworthy the Muslim Brotherhood can hardly claim innocence because they failed to pay heed to the disaffection that preceded their rise to power. A 2012 opinion survey by Brookings showed that 71 percent of Egyptians felt that it was a mistake for the Brotherhood to renege on their promise to not field a candidate for the Presidency. The Brotherhood incorrectly perceived their electoral victory as a mandate to inject religion into politics. While 6 in 10 Egyptians wanted Sharia to be the basis of Egyptian law, 83 percent wanted Sharia to be adapted to modern times. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed wanted the Egyptian democracy to be modeled after Turkey, a secular republic currently being successfully ruled by moderate Islamists (the Gezi park fiasco notwithstanding).

Most of all, Egyptians sought good governance and a relief from the crushing 13.2 percent unemployment that has resulted in 8 out of every 10 jobless Egyptians being under the age of 30 with more than a quarter of them holding university degrees. The Brotherhood by pursuing a parochial agenda essentially missed an opportunity to demonstrate that like Turkey’s Islamists they were a marked improvement over the regime they replaced. Not all of its failings were their fault though. The New York Times recently reported that Egypt’s deep state had conspired to make the Morsi government look bad. The day after Morsi was ousted, gas supplies and electrical power magically returned to normalcy.

Despite my euphoria in 2011, I had sounded a cautionary alarm, “Standing at the edge of a new dawn, one cannot help but be hopeful. But this euphoria of hope should not detract attention from a basic fact — democracy is a process, not an outcome. The process requires engagement and vigilance. Removing a dictatorial regime is not enough, for democracy is not merely the rule of the majority but also necessitates the protection of minority rights and voices.”

The Brotherhood missed an opportunity to unite Egypt by creating an inclusive constitutional process, underscored by the fact that only 1 in 3 eligible voters participated in the constitutional referendum. The opposition was just as incompetent by being unable to mount a viable counter narrative and now appears unscrupulous by cheering a coup d’etat that is witnessing the return of the old Mubarak cronies. The Brotherhood and its opposition each in their zeal to prevail are blinded to the reality that only a democratic and inclusive Egypt that respects the dignity of all its citizens, including women and all minorities will truly honor the aspirations of the Arab Spring when Egypt stood united and people worlds away from Tahrir felt like saying we are all Egyptians now. Two years ago, the millions on the street inspired hope. Today they evoke fear.