From Biblical Sexism to Societal Prejudice:

Women in Ancient Judaism and Contemporary Islam By Sarah Katz

The two monotheistic religions of Islam and Judaism share many common aspects, from the practice of circumcision to the prohibition of consumption of pork. Given that Islam was virtually inspired by Judaism, such similarities are to be expected. A highly controversial theme which exists within the Quran and the Torahthe sacred texts of the two religions, respectivelyis the portrayal of their female figures and the laws by which they must abide. Whether it be the necessity of the Hebrew matriarch Sarah in the Torah to ask her husband to take a second lover or the divorce law in the Quran, there seems to exist an air of oppression when it comes to the way which women are depicted and the conditions they must bare. This implicit sexism in the holy books of these two major religions has undoubtedly led to the modern-day treatment of women in both Orthodox Judaism and Islamic theocratic nations. In order to determine the origin of this sexist image of women in Judaism and Islam, it may be useful to note the dilemma of popular monotheisms first woman, Eve. In the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Torah, an evil snake seduces Eve into tasting the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Having betrayed God and learned the truth of the world, Eve, along with the first man Adam, are expelled from the Garden of Eden. Now, seeing as men are quite the popular sex when it comes to the sacred texts of monotheism, it could just as easily have been Adam who triggered this crucial change of course in the lives of humans. However, the turn away from a simple life of paradise is a negative one, something which seems to have set the stage for the female image throughout the rest of

Genesis. If subsequent sections of the Torah are any reference, it would appear as if Eves mistake spoiled the fortune for many female figures after her. Indeed, next we arrive at Lot, cousin of the Hebrew patriarch, Abraham, and his wife who are fleeing from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as God destroys them with a shower of brimstone. Unfortunately, Lots wife does not succeed in escaping along with her husband. The Torah states, But Lots wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt (19:26). Similarly, in the Quran, it is written via Surat Al-Araf, So We delivered him and his household, except for his wife who stayed behind (7: 83). It can be seen here, that Lots wifes decision to look backor stay behind, as in the Quran costs her life, for she disobeyed Gods orders, just as Eve had done so many years earlier. Especially in terms of her fate in the Torah, becoming a pillar of salt seems particularly harsh. It almost seems as though God, who is omniscient, has predicted all along that the female sex is prone to curiositya curiosity which must be abated. After all, Eves curiosity cost her a life of eternal harmony and Lots wifes curiosity destroyed her. A perhaps less extreme fate is suffered by Sarah, the Hebrew matriarch and wife of Lots cousin, Abraham. Whereas Lots wife met a ghastly end, Sarah lived a relatively long and prosperous lifebut, along with her Egyptian slave-girl, encountered several difficult emotional decisions along the way. Firstly, she had not only had to face the fact that she was barren but also accept the alternative to giving Abraham a child. She tells her husband, Go into my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her (16:2). It is quite tragic that Sarah is so desperate for children that she felt compelled to instruct her husband to sleep with another woman. Moreover, shortly after the slave-girl Hagar bears Abrahams first son, Ishmael, God decides to grant Sarah the ability to have

children. Why bestow this gift all of a sudden, almost as if He wished to toy with or test Sarah? Why did God feel the need to make Sarah suffer the pain of seeing another woman bear her husbands child? Indeed, we see this mercilessness extend to Hagar herself. Following her flight from Sarah at the latters wrath, an angel of God follows her and instructs her to return: Return to your mistress, and submit to her (16:11). Hagar, who is pregnant and frightened, is thus compelled to live in fear of her mistresss distress over the child Hagar carries. Similarly, in the instance of Jacob and his wife Rachel, we encounter yet another barren woman in Genesis. Meanwhile, her sister Leah was compelled to watch as her father had to trick Jacob into marrying her first. According to tradition, Leah should have been married first and yet, the eligible bachelor who arrived fell in love with her younger sister instead. If God truly sees all, then He predicted this series of events and probably made it happenbut why? To know that she should marry first but see her sister be courted instead must have been humiliating. Did God set forth this dichotomy for purposes of making things interesting? If so, is not the natural curiosity of the woman, the tendency to question authority, enough of a spice to the way affairs play out? Why must God make sure they suffer so? For some reason, women of the Torahwhether the wives of prominent male figures or handmaidens--seem to frequently receive the short end of the stick, as if their actions and natures are those of problematic nuisances who must be taught a lesson. But, by whom? By God? By men? What exactly is the need for such female submissiveness? Why would God, the Passionate and the Merciful, make them behave poorly so that they will suffer? It all appears as a cruel game.

One cannot help but notice a trend when it comes to the situation of women in the sacred text of another Abrahamic religion. As such negative images of women existed from the early chapters of the Old Testament, it is no wonder that the more recent Quran also adopts a rather negative view of the female gender. However, whereas the sexism of Genesis is apparent via stories which exhibit disobedient women, the Quran adopts a more legal air to its prejudice. From a general standpoint, the rights of women in the Quran are clearly stated, in Surat Al-Baqarah: Your women are a tillage for you. So get your tillage whenever you like (2:223). This comparison of women to nothing more than something which a man has cultivated brings to mind the concept of propertysomething which the man owns. Furthermore, the phrase get your tillage whenever you like sounds unnervingly similar to the right of a man to have sexual relations with his wife, even when she does not desire it. Still, it could also represent a mans right to take as a wife whomever he wishes, leaving the woman with no say as to whom she shall marry. Delving deeper into the greater context of this concept, we can look to the title of the Surah: Al-Baqarah, which is Arabic for the Cow. The fact that the mention of wives as tillage of their husbands appears in a chapter whose title is the name of a kind of livestock suggests a disturbing comparisonthat women are both crops and livestock for their men. The men own the women, like land or beasts. Another general view of womens status is found further on in the same Surah, regarding the right of a man to take a woman back, following a divorce. It is stated, And women have rights equal to what is incumbent upon them according to what is just, although men are one degree above them (2: 228). Here, it is plainly written that men

are one degree above women. In this case, this superiority pertains to the womans right to return to him after a divorce, meaning that she must comply if her ex-husband wills it. What if her former husband used to beat her or sexually abuse her? No matter, for she must obey him based on his gender. Thus, this female helplessness is again apparent within the laws of the Quran. Besides the issue of divorce rights, rules of inheritance following the death of a family member also places women at the back of the line. Regarding to whom the portion of a deceased persons finances is granted, Surat An-Nisa states, If there are brothers and sisters, they share, the male having twice the share of the female (4:176). The fact that a female relative is only entitled to half of what a male relative would receive, once again, shows the arbitrary rules which tend to place women last. After all, if a woman has the deceased as her brother or sister and a man has the deceased as his brother or sister, they are both of equally close relation to the departed. Therefore, the reasoning which allots a greater monetary portion to the male relative is clearly based solely on his superior status as a man. Found also in Surat An-Nisa, is the much-debated right of polygyny within Islam. It almost goes without saying, however, that this polygamy is only permitted for men. In terms of handling marriage candidates, the Quran decrees to men, If you fear that you cannot deal justly with the orphans, then marry such of the women as appeal to you, two, three or four (4:3). Such a liberty for men undoubtedly has the potential to lead to emotional strife caused by jealousy among the wives. Moreover, children who are brought up around several different mothers but only one father are certain to grow up with a muddled view of relationships, both familial and marital. Nevertheless, this right

to polygyny obviously also originates from the days of Abraham. After all, in Abrahams time, men often married multiple women or even had one wife with several concubines. Notwithstanding, perhaps the necessity for multiple wives was to bear more children, in case some perished from the harsh desert environment. However, in light of modern medicine and improved living standards in most of the Middle East, the need for such precautions regarding reproduction has considerably diminished. In any case, as with the situation of Sarah seeing her husband have a child by another woman, the emotional ordeal that accompanies polygyny is never easy for a woman. Indeed, the right to polygamy of any sort has been outlawed in Judaism since the 11th century (Snyder). Therefore, the practice of polygyny in modern Muslim societies is more likely to result in familial discord, primarily where the women and children are concerned. Delving further into the Quranic teachings, female inferiority can be found in other aspects of morality, set forth by the holy text. One such example is another law which deals with chastity of sorts, only one that is perhaps more demanding than the previous Surah which deals with virginity. Regarding female menstruation, the Quran instructs, It is an impurity. So keep away from women during their menstruation and do not approach them until they are clean (2:222). This concept that the natural biological process of menstruation is something impure and ghastly again denotes the general subordination of the female nature found in the Quran. Such a portrayal brings to mind the necessity that Orthodox women take the mikveh (purity path) when they bleed. For some reason, these two religions equate a bodily process over which women have no control to something shameful and dirty. This negative viewpoint towards menstruation is

even more severe than that of virginity, as at least the preservation of virginity is something many women can control. Regarding the rights of married women, the Quran goes on to favor the man in the same way. In the section regarding laws for women and adultery, the Quran states in Surah An-Nur, And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the testimony of one of them shall be to swear by Allah four times that he is truthful (24:6). The fact that a husband could be lying about his wifes infidelity and still be taken seriously after repeating a line four times seems completely bogus. Now, while one may argue that a wife may avoid punishment if her husband is proven wrong in his claims, it is not written anywhere that she may bring him to trial for adultery. This double standard presents a type of hypocrisy regarding the rights of men and women in the Quran. A woman will be punished if proven to be an adulteress, but she will be provided no compensation for her husbands unfaithfulness. Likewise, the renowned value of female virginity until marriage surfaces as one of the good things which Allah grants to men. However, as always, it is only the women who seem to be expected to remain chaste. It is written in Surah Al-Maidah, And so are the believing women who are chaste, and the chaste women of those who were given the Book before you, provided you give them their dowries and take them in marriage, not in fornication or as mistresses (5:5). While this Surah presents ethical advice in its instruction against the possession of a mistress, the aspect of purity via virginity seems rather problematic. After all, does this passage seek to indicate that a woman who is not chaste before marriage (i.e. not a virgin) is unworthy of marriage or love? Does her virginity determine the quality of her character? Such a stigma,

especially as it is not also applied to men, seems a harsh price to pay for ones reputation. After all, what if a woman was taken against her will? Is she to be shunned by her society and tainted, therefore deeming her ineligible for marriage? Denying a woman, or any person, the right to happiness based on a stigma--especially if she had no control over what happened to her--is simply inhumane. By means of laws relating to chastity, menstruation, marriage, divorce and matters of inheritance, the Quran exhibits its sexist view of females. Such a view, which included a great many societal aspects, was undoubtedly incorporated by extremist Islamic groups, such as the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood, into the laws of contemporary Islamic countries where these groups reign supreme. However, in light of the sexist undertones of the Quran, the governments of many modern-day Islamic countries have taken the necessity for female subordination to a whole new level particularly in the area of required attire. For instance, in theocratic countries such as Iran, the women must wear the hijab veil at all times, regardless of climate or individual religion. A primary source I have regarding this predicament is a former classmate with whom I studied Russian during my first year at college. She was an Iranian-Armenian who practiced Armenian Orthodox Christianity and, while living in Iran, was expected to wear the hijab whenever she left her house. Indeed, Orthodox Jewish women must wear the tzinut (head covering) once they are married. Still, the hijab is required once the female reaches puberty, thus subjecting her to an even shorter period of time, regarding her physical appearance. Furthermore, contrary to some beliefs, the hijab is something which is, in fact, mentioned in the Quran, also in Surah An-Nur: And tell believing women to cast down

their eyes and guard their private parts and not show their finery, except the outward part of it. And let them drape their bossoms with their veils and not show their finery except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, their women, their maid-servants, the men-followers who have no sexual desire, or infants who have no knowledge of womens sexual parts yet (24:31). Despite the long list of relatives for whom a woman may shed her veil, the body part which must remained covered is made apparent. The reference to cover the bosom could very well pertain to the breasts only. Nowhere is the face or hair mentioned, the primary physical features which the modern hijab is meant to conceal. Unless the aforementioned private parts which require covering refer to the face or hair, then the Quran makes no command to cover the face and hair. Moreover, it is decreed that believing womenassumedly Muslim women-must adhere to this custom. Christians like my former classmate should, then, be exempt. The fact that women of any religion must wear the veil so long as they live in a certain country proves the existence of theocracy in said country. Therefore, it appears that the development of the hijab from a breast-covering into a piece of attire which must conceal the facial features and hair as well as all of the body is simply a way to neutralize the beauty of a women and appease the jealous nature of men. Conclusively, it is the tendency of powerful men to control women which attempts to use religion as an excuse for female subjectivity. The fact remains that this sexism in both extremist Islam and some varieties of Judaism must have stemmed from somewhereperhaps from the aforementioned

portrayal of various female figures in the Torah? The sexism of the Torah can also be seen in various members of the Orthodox Jewish community. As a personal example, on a visit to the Jewish Ghetto in Venice during summer of 2007, my father and me were approached by a young male Chassidic Jew who stated, in front of me, that, Its a shame that you [my father] didnt have a son. Thus, this prejudiced view of women in Islam can potentially be traced back to such beliefs in ancient Judaism. But ancient is the key word here. Societies must evolve, abandoning or reforming various ideas put forth by their oldest doctrines for the sake of equal rights for people who live in the society today. Unfortunately, however, the sexist aspect of Islamic societies is also apparent in the views which many Muslim men hold regarding the concept of a female political leader. In her book, The Veil and the Male Elite, the Moroccan feminist writer and sociologist, Fatema Mernissi, describes an encounter in a market place, regarding the locals opinions on women and politics. She subsequently tells of the certain sense of disbelief which the average citizen of Morocco expressed towards such a proposition. In response to her suggestion of a female societal leader, her fellow Moroccan, a male grocer, replied: I take refuge in Allah! She then continues to describe the reaction of a customer who was standing nearby: May God protect us from the catastrophes of the times! and then he made as if to spit. Such a reaction seems utterly disgusted and almost fearful, as if depending on a woman for anything practical such as leadership would end in disaster. Indeed, when she asks an acquaintance of a higher level of education, a schoolteacher, the same question, he quotes the Bukhari Hadith, Those who entrust their affairs to a woman will never know prosperity (Ahmed). The fact that an educator trusts so much in Quranic interpretations indicates the immense influence which

10

religion must hold over much of Moroccan society. Indeed, Mernissi then states that in a Muslim theocracy, a Hadith (tradition) is no small matter. Thus, she asserts her opinion that Morocco is, in fact, ruled by an Islamic government. She goes on to say, They constitute, along with the Koran (the book revealed by God), both the source of law and the standard for distinguishing the true from the false, the permitted from the forbidden they have shaped Muslim ethics and values. Here, we are shown the way in which religious law has been incorporated into the laws, politics and morality of many Muslim societies, such as Morocco. Indeed, it is interesting to note this case of two religions that frequently regard each other with such animosityhow the ancient ideas of one led to the major societal foundation of the other in todays world. Fortunately, in the case of Judaism, the less strict sects of Conservative and Reformed Judaism tend to balance out the archaic opinions of the Orthodoxy. As of today, no region is ruled by an Orthodox Jewish theocracy. Nevertheless, there are places where Muslim theocratic governments reign supreme, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan. Again, as with the situation of adultery laws, there arises the question of why only the women are required to adhere to certain rules. After all, both the words Islam and Muslim can translate to a submission to Gods will. Surely, this submission does should not apply more to one gender than to the other. In truth, the sexism of the oldest stories of the Abrahamic religions has been augmented to excuse the religious governing of many nations today. Yet, there was a reason for the separation of Church and State. Religion cannot hope to answer all the questions nor solve all the political issues of a state. A great social reform is now needed

11

in the countries which live under extremist Islamic regimes, lest womens voices in regions like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan be silenced forever.

Works Cited Fakhry, Majid. An Interpretation of the Qur'an. New York: New York UP, 2004. Print. Hayes, John. "Genesis." Topics in Islam. Print. Mernissi, Fatima. The Veil and the Male Elite: a Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1991. Print. Snyder, Laurel. "Jews and Polygamy? by Laurel Snyder | Jewcy.com." Jewcy.com. 16 May 2007. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://www.jewcy.com/religion-andbeliefs/jews_and_polygamy>.

12