THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIOLOGY

ACTIVITY # 2

Submitted by: Hooria khan

SAP-ID/ Cms: 2578/18734
Submitted to: Ma’am Hina Rasul
 Short Questions

1. What is functional perspective?

Theories in sociology provide us with different perspectives with which to view our social world.
A perspective is simply a way of looking at the world. Sociology includes three major theoretical
perspectives: the functionalist perspective, the conflict perspective, and the symbolic
interactionist perspective.
Definition:
The functionalist perspective is based largely on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim,
Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. According to functionalism, society is a system of
interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and social
equilibrium for the whole.
For example:
Each of the social institutions contributes important functions for society: Family provides a
context for reproducing, nurturing, and socializing children; education offers a way to transmit a
society’s skills, knowledge, and culture to its youth; politics provides a means of governing
members of society; economics provides for the production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services; and religion provides moral guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher
power.

2. How societies see like living organisms?

The idea of something changing naturally isn't a new idea, but one that Charles Darwin explained
with his theory of evolution. Herbert Spencer, an English sociologist, took Darwin's theory and
applied it to how societies change and evolve over time. As a sociologist, Spencer did not feel
the need to correct or improve society, for he felt that societies were bound to change
automatically.
Spencer took the theory of evolution one step beyond biology and applied it to say that societies
were organisms that progress through changes similar to that of a living species. It was Spencer's
philosophy that societies (like organisms) would begin simple and then progress to a more
complex form. Spencer also found similarities between animal organisms and societies in that
both had three main systems.
The first system is the regulative system. In animals, that would be the central nervous system. In
societies, it would be a government that regulates everything. The second system is the
sustaining system. For animals, that's the giving and receiving of nourishment. For societies, that
would be industry - jobs, money, economy and those sorts of things. The third system would be
the distribution system. In animals, that would be the veins and arteries. In societies, it would be
roads, transportation, Internet - anything in which information and goods and services are
exchanged.
 Societies can be compared to organisms in that both have three main systems.

3. Who compared society to a living organism?

The model, or concept, of society-as-organism is traced by George R. MacLay from Aristotle

through 19th-century and later thinkers, including the French founder of sociology, Auguste
Comte, the English philosopher and polymath Herbert Spencer, and the French sociologist Emile
Durkheim.
During the middle of the nineteenth century, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer made the
organismic analogy central to evolutionary sociology. Societies and organisms are analogous,
Spencer wrote in a paper on the “social organism” which he published in 1860, because of the
fact that they both “slowly augment in mass; that they progress in complexity of structure; that at
the same time their parts become more mutually dependent.” For Herbert Spencer, the
organismic analogy suggested a naturalistic basis to society; and it implied a continuity between
life in its simplest and in its most complex forms. “Through all its ramifications,” Spencer wrote,
“Society is a growth and not a manufacture.” Spencer’s analogy of the social organism is
significant not merely because of its great importance for the history of social thought, but also
because it illuminates an important aspect of scientific argument during the mid-nineteenth
century. Whereas many British philosophers had maintained that valid science should be
grounded in experiment and induction, Herbert Spencer attempted instead to found his science
upon the principle of analogy.

4. What is the functionalist view on family, religion, and culture?

Functionalist Theory:
In functionalist theory, the different parts of society are primarily composed of social
institutions, each designed to fill different needs. Family, government, economy, media,
education, and religion are important to understanding this theory and the core institutions that
define sociology. According to functionalism, an institution only exists because it serves a vital
role in the functioning of society. If it no longer serves a role, an institution will die away. When
new needs evolve or emerge, new institutions will be created to meet them.
Functionalist view on family, religion, and culture:
Broadly speaking, the functionalist perspective has focused on the functions of the family in
society and for its members. In other words, it looks at how the family, as an institution, helps in
maintaining order and stability in society, and the significance of the family for its individual
members. Whereas functionalists argue that religion is a conservative force and that this is a
positive function for society and for individuals. Religion helps to create social order and
maintains the value consensus. Functionalists view society as a system in which all parts work—
or function—together to create society as a whole. In this way, societies need culture to
exist. Cultural norms function to support the fluid operation of society, and cultural values guide
people in making choices.

5. What is the purpose of symbolic interactions?

Definition:
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people
impose on objects, events, and behaviors. Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is
believed that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true.
Purpose:
Symbolic interactionism is a means used by a researcher to provide an understanding of how
people make sense of their world, employing aspects they have developed over their individual
lives in a multiplicity of contexts.
Examples:
As humans and as members of a society, we learn to understand through our interaction with
symbols, including the letters of our language that make up words. For example, the word "cat"
does not have meaning in and of itself.
 Descriptive Questions

1. What do you think about social change in society support your answer according to
conflict perspective?

Social change refers to the transformation of culture, behavior, social institutions, and social
structure over time. We are familiar from earlier chapters with the basic types of society: hunting
and gathering, horticultural and pastoral, agricultural, industrial, and postindustrial. In looking at
all of these societies, we have seen how they differ in such dimensions as size, technology,
economy, inequality, and gender roles. In short, we have seen some of the ways in which
societies change over time. Another way of saying this is that we have seen some of the ways in
which societies change as they become more modern. To understand social change, then, we
need to begin to understand what it means for a society to become more modern.

Modernization
Modernization refers to the process and impact of becoming more modern. Modernization has
been an important focus of sociology since its origins in the 19th century. Several dimensions
and effects of modernization seem apparent (Nolan & Lenski, 2009).Nolan, P., & Lenski, G.
(2009). Human societies: An introduction to macrosociology (11th ed). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
First, as societies evolve, they become much larger and more heterogeneous. This means that
people are more different from each other than when societies were much smaller, and it also
means that they ordinarily cannot know each other nearly as well. Larger, more modern societies
thus typically have weaker social bonds and a weaker sense of community than small societies
and more of an emphasis on the needs of the individual.

As societies become more modern, they begin to differ from non-modern societies in several
ways. In particular, they become larger and more heterogeneous, they lose their traditional
ways of thinking, and they gain in individual freedom and autonomy.

We can begin to appreciate the differences between smaller and larger societies when we
contrast a small college of 1,200 students with a large university of 40,000 students. Perhaps you
had this contrast in mind when you were applying to college and had a preference for either a
small or a large institution. In a small college, classes might average no more than 20 students;
these students get to know each other well and to have a lot of interaction with the professor. In a
large university, classes might hold 600 students or more, and everything is more impersonal.
Large universities do have many advantages, but they probably do not have as strong a sense of
community as is found at small colleges.
A second aspect of modernization is a loss of traditional ways of thinking. This allows a society
to be creative and to abandon old ways that may no longer be appropriate, but it also means a
weakening or even loss of the traditions that helped define the society and gave it a sense of
identity.
A third aspect of modernization is the growth of individual freedom and autonomy. As societies
grow, become more impersonal, and lose their traditions and sense of community, their norms
become weaker, and individuals thus become freer to think for themselves and to behave in new
ways. Although most of us would applaud this growth in individual freedom, it also means, as
Émile Durkheim (1895/1962) Durkheim, E. (1962). The rules of sociological method. New
York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1895) recognized long ago, that people feel
freer to deviate from society’s norms and thus to commit deviance. If we want a society that
values individual freedom, Durkheim said, we automatically must have a society with deviance.
Is modernization good or bad? This is a simplistic question about a very complex concept, but a
quick answer is that it is both good and bad. We see evidence for both responses in the views of
sociologists Ferdinand Tönnies, Max Weber, and Durkheim. As Chapter 2 "Culture and Society"
discussed, Tönnies (1887/1963) Tönnies, F. (1963). Community and society. New York, NY:
Harper and Row. (Original work published 1887) said that modernization meant a shift
from Gemeinschaft (small societies with strong social bonds) to Gesellschaft (large societies with
weaker social bonds and more impersonal social relations). Tönnies lamented the loss of close
social bonds and of a strong sense of community resulting from modernization.
Weber (1921/1978) Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive
sociology. (Original work published 1921) was also concerned about modernization. The
hallmarks of modernization, he thought, are rationalization, a loss of tradition, and the rise of
impersonal bureaucracy. He despaired over the impersonal quality of rational thinking and
bureaucratization, as he thought it was a dehumanizing influence.
Durkheim (1893/1933) Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. London, England:
The Free Press. (Original work published 1893) took a less negative view of modernization. He
certainly appreciated the social bonds and community feeling, which he called mechanical
solidarity, characteristic of small, traditional societies. However, he also thought that these
societies stifled individual freedom and that social solidarity still exists in modern societies. This
solidarity, which he termed organic solidarity, stems from the division of labor, in which
everyone has to depend on everyone else to perform their jobs. This interdependence of roles,
Durkheim said, creates a solidarity that retains much of the bonding and sense of community
found in premodern societies.
Beyond these abstract concepts of social bonding and sense of community, modern societies
have certainly been a force for both good and bad in other ways. They have led to scientific
discoveries that have saved lives, extended life spans, and made human existence much easier
than imaginable in the distant past and even in the recent past. But they have also polluted the
environment, engaged in wars that have killed tens of millions, and built up nuclear arsenals that,
even with the demise of the Soviet Union, still threaten the planet. Modernization, then, is a
double-edged sword. It has given us benefits too numerous to count, but it also has made human
existence very precarious.
 Sociological Perspectives on Social Change
Sociological perspectives on social change fall into the functionalist and conflict approaches. As
usual, both views together offer a more complete understanding of social change than either view
by itself (Vago, 2004).Vago, S. (2004). Social change (5th ed.). Table 14.1 "Theory Snapshot"
summarizes their major assumptions.

Theoretical perspective Major assumptions

Functionalism Society is in a natural state of equilibrium.
Gradual change is necessary and desirable
and typically stems from such things as
population growth, technological
advances, and interaction with other
societies that brings new ways of thinking
and acting. However, sudden social
change is undesirable because it disrupts
this equilibrium. To prevent this from
happening, other parts of society must
make appropriate adjustments if one part
of society sees too sudden a change.
Conflict theory Because the status quo is characterized by
social inequality and other problems,
sudden social change in the form of
protest or revolution is both desirable and
necessary to reduce or eliminate social
inequality and to address other social ills.

The Functionalist Understanding

The functionalist understanding of social change is based on insights developed by different
generations of sociologists. Early sociologists likened change in society to change in biological
organisms. Taking a cue from the work of Charles Darwin, they said that societies evolved just
as organisms do, from tiny, simple forms too much larger and more complex structures. When
societies are small and simple, there are few roles to perform, and just about everyone can
perform all of these roles. As societies grow and evolve, many new roles develop, and not
everyone has the time or skill to perform every role. People thus start to specialize their roles and
a division of labor begins. As noted earlier, sociologists such as Durkheim and Tönnies disputed
the implications of this process for social bonding and a sense of community, and this basic
debate continues today.
Several decades ago, Talcott Parsons (1966), Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and
comparative perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. The leading 20th-century figure
in functionalist theory, presented an equilibrium model of social change. Parsons said that
society is always in a natural state of equilibrium, defined as a state of equal balance among
opposing forces. Gradual change is both necessary and desirable and typically stems from such
things as population growth, technological advances, and interaction with other societies that
brings new ways of thinking and acting. However, any sudden social change disrupts this
equilibrium. To prevent this from happening, other parts of society must make appropriate
adjustments if one part of society sees too sudden a change.
 Functionalist theory assumes that sudden social change, as by the protest depicted here, is
highly undesirable, whereas conflict theory assumes that sudden social change may be needed to
correct inequality and other deficiencies in the status quo.

The functionalist perspective has been criticized on a few grounds. The perspective generally
assumes that the change from simple to complex societies has been very positive, when in fact,
as we have seen, this change has also proven costly in many ways. It might well have weakened
social bonds, and it has certainly imperiled human existence. Functionalist theory also assumes
that sudden social change is highly undesirable, when such change may in fact be needed to
correct inequality and other deficiencies in the status quo.

Conflict Theory
Whereas functional theory assumes the status quo is generally good and sudden social change is
undesirable, conflict theory assumes the status quo is generally bad. It thus views sudden social
change in the form of protest or revolution as both desirable and necessary to reduce or eliminate
social inequality and to address other social ills. Another difference between the two approaches
concerns industrialization, which functional theory views as a positive development that helped
make modern society possible. In contrast, conflict theory, following the views of Karl Marx,
says that industrialization exploited workers and thus increased social inequality.
In one other difference between the two approaches, functionalist sociologists view social
change as the result of certain natural forces, which we will discuss shortly. In this sense, social
change is unplanned even though it happens anyway. Conflict theorists, however, recognize that
social change often stems from efforts by social movements to bring about fundamental changes
in the social, economic, and political systems. In his sense social change is more “planned,” or at
least intended, than functional theory acknowledges.
Critics of conflict theory say that it exaggerates the extent of social inequality and that it
sometimes overemphasizes economic conflict while neglecting conflict rooted in race and
ethnicity, gender, religion, and other sources. Its Marxian version also erred in predicting that
capitalist societies would inevitably undergo a socialist-communist revolution.

Sources of Social Change

We have seen that social change stems from natural forces and also from the intentional acts of
groups of people. This section further examines these sources of social change.
Population Growth and Composition
Much of the discussion so far has talked about population growth as a major source of social
change as societies evolved from older to modern times. Yet even in modern societies, changes
in the size and composition of the population can have important effects for other aspects of a
society. As just one example, the number of school-age children reached a high point in the late
1990s as the children of the post–World War II baby boom entered their school years. This
swelling of the school-age population had at least three important consequences. First, new
schools had to be built, modular classrooms and other structures had to be added to existing
schools, and more teachers and other school personnel had to be hired (Leonard, 1998).Leonard,
J. (1998, September 25). Crowding puts crunch on classrooms. The Los Angeles Times, p. B1.
Second, school boards and municipalities had to borrow dollars and/or raise taxes to pay for all
of these expenses. Third, the construction industry, building supply centers, and other businesses
profited from the building of new schools and related activities. The growth of this segment of
our population thus had profound implications for many aspects of U.S. society even though it
was unplanned and “natural.” We explore population growth and change further in a later
section.

Culture and Technology

Culture and technology are other sources of social change. Changes in culture can change
technology; changes in technology can transform culture; and changes in both can alter other
aspects of society.
Two examples from either end of the 20th century illustrate the complex relationship among
culture, technology, and society. At the beginning of the century, the car was still a new
invention, and automobiles slowly but surely grew in number, diversity, speed, and power. The
car altered the social and physical landscape of the United States and other industrial nations as
few other inventions have. Roads and highways were built; pollution increased; families began
living farther from each other and from their workplaces; tens of thousands of people started
dying annually in car accidents. These are just a few of the effects the invention of the car had,
but they illustrate how changes in technology can affect so many other aspects of society.
At the end of the 20th century came the personal computer, whose development has also had an
enormous impact that will not be fully understand for some years to come. Anyone old enough,
such as many of your oldest professors, to remember having to type long manuscripts on a
manual typewriter will easily attest to the difference computers have made for many aspects of
our work lives. E-mail, the Internet, and smartphones have enabled instant communication and
make the world a very small place, and tens of millions of people now use Facebook and other
social media. A generation ago, students studying abroad or working in the Peace Corps overseas
would send a letter back home, and it would take up to 2 weeks or more to arrive. It would take
another week or 2 for them to hear back from their parents. Now even in poor parts of the world,
access to computers and smartphones lets us communicate instantly with people across the
planet.
As the world becomes a smaller place, it becomes possible for different cultures to have more
contact with each other. This contact, too, leads to social change to the extent that one culture
adopts some of the norms, values, and other aspects of another culture. Anyone visiting a poor
nation and seeing Coke, Pepsi, and other popular U.S. products in vending machines and stores
in various cities will have a culture shock that reminds us instantly of the influence of one culture
on another. For better or worse, this impact means that the world’s diverse cultures are
increasingly giving way to a more uniform global culture.
This process has been happening for more than a century. The rise of newspapers, the
development of trains and railroads, and the invention of the telegraph, telephone, and, later,
radio and television allowed cultures in different parts of the world to communicate with each
other in ways not previously possible. Affordable jet transportation, cell phones, the Internet, and
other modern technology have taken such communication a gigantic step further.
Many observers fear that the world is becoming “Westernized” as Coke, Pepsi, McDonald’s, and
other products and companies invade other cultures. Others say that Westernization is a good
thing, because these products, but especially more important ones like refrigerators and
computers, do make people’s lives easier and therefore better. Still other observers say the
impact of Westernization has been exaggerated. Both within the United States and across the
world, these observers say, most of cultures continue to thrive, and people continue to hold on to
their ethnic identities.

The Natural Environment

Changes in the natural environment can also lead to changes in a society itself. We see the
clearest evidence of this when a major hurricane, an earthquake, or another natural disaster
strikes. Three recent disasters illustrate this phenomenon. In April 2010, an oil rig operated by
BP, an international oil and energy company, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating the worst
environmental disaster in U.S. history; its effects on the ocean, marine animals, and the
economies of states and cities affected by the oil spill will be felt for decades to come. In January
2010, a devastating earthquake struck Haiti and killed more than 250,000 people, or about 2.5%
of that nation’s population. A month later, an even stronger earthquake hit Chile. Although this
earthquake killed only hundreds (it was relatively far from Chile’s large cities and the Chilean
buildings were sturdily built), it still caused massive damage to the nation’s infrastructure.
Obviously the effects of these natural disasters on the economy and society of each of these two
countries will also be felt for many years to come.

As is evident in this photo taken in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake that devastated Haiti,
changes in the natural environment can lead to profound changes in a society. Environmental
changes are one of the many sources of social change.

Slower changes in the environment can also have a large social impact. As noted earlier, one of
the negative effects of industrialization has been the increase in pollution of our air, water, and
ground. With estimates of the number of U.S. deaths from air pollution ranging from a low of
10,000 to a high of 60,000 (Reiman & Leighton, 2010). The rich get richer and the poor get
prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (9th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pollution obviously has an important impact on our society. A larger environmental problem,
climate change, has also been relatively slow in arriving but threatens the whole planet in ways
that climate change researchers have already documented and will no doubt be examining for the
rest of our lifetimes and beyond (Schneider, Rosencranz, Mastrandrea, & Kuntz-Duriseti,
2010).Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., Mastrandrea, M. D., & Kuntz-Duriseti, K. (Eds.).
(2010). Climate change science and policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Social Conflict
Change also results from social conflict, including wars, ethnic conflict, efforts by social
movements to change society, and efforts by their opponents to maintain the status quo. The
immediate impact that wars have on societies is obvious, as the deaths of countless numbers of
soldiers and civilians over the ages have affected not only the lives of their loved ones but also
the course of whole nations. To take just one of many examples, the defeat of Germany in World
War I led to a worsening economy during the next decade that in turn helped fuel the rise of
Hitler. In a less familiar example, the deaths of so many soldiers during the American Civil War
left many wives and mothers without their family’s major breadwinner. Many of these women
thus had to turn to prostitution to earn an income, helping to fuel a rise in prostitution after the
war (Marks, 1990).Marks, P. (1990). Bicycles, bangs, and bloomers: The new woman in the
popular press. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Social movements have also been major forces for social change. Racial segregation in the South
ended only after thousands of African Americans, often putting their lives on the line for their
cause, engaged in sit-ins, marches, and massive demonstrations during the 1950s and 1960s. The
Southern civil rights movement is just one of the many social movements that have changed
American history, and we return to these movements later in the chapter.

Conclusion
As societies become more modern, they become larger and more heterogeneous. Traditional
ways of thinking decline, and individual freedom and autonomy increase.
Functionalist theory favors slow, incremental social change, while conflict theory favors fast,
far-reaching social change to correct what it views as social inequalities and other problems in
the status quo.
Major sources of social change include population growth and composition, culture and
technology, the natural environment, and social conflict.

2. What is the right of women according to Islamic point of view and which factors
determine the changing roles of women in western societies and Islamic societies?

In Islam, men and women are moral equals in God's sight and are expected to fulfill the same
duties of worship, prayer, faith, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Islam generally
improved the status of women compared to earlier Arab cultures, prohibiting female infanticide
and recognizing women's full personhood. Islamic law emphasizes the contractual nature of
marriage, requiring that a dowry be paid to the woman rather than to her family, and
guaranteeing women's rights of inheritance and to own and manage property. Women were also
granted the right to live in the matrimonial home and receive financial maintenance during
marriage and a waiting period following death and divorce.
The historical record shows that Muhammad consulted women and weighed their opinions
seriously. At least one woman, Umm Waraqah, was appointed imam over her household by
Muhammad. Women contributed significantly to the canonization of the Quran. A woman is
known to have corrected the authoritative ruling of Caliph Umar on dowry. Women prayed in
mosques unsegregated from men, were involved in hadith transmission, gave sanctuary to men,
engaged in commercial transactions, were encouraged to seek knowledge, and were both
instructors and pupils in the early Islamic period. Muhammad's last wife, Aishah, was a well-
known authority in medicine, history, and rhetoric. The Quran refers to women who pledged an
oath of allegiance to Muhammad independently of their male kin. Some distinguished women
converted to Islam prior to their husbands, a demonstration of Islam's recognition of their
capacity for independent action. Caliph Umar appointed women to serve as officials in the
market of Medina. Biographies of distinguished women, especially in Muhammad's household,
show that women behaved relatively autonomously in early Islam. In Sufi circles, women were
recognized as teachers, adherents, “spiritual mothers,” and even inheritors of the spiritual secrets
of their fathers.
No woman held religious titles in Islam, but many women held political power, some jointly
with their husbands, others independently. The best-known women rulers in the premodern era
include Khayzuran , who governed the Muslim Empire under three Abbasid caliphs in the eighth
century; Malika Asma bint Shihab al-Sulayhiyya and Malika Arwa bint Ahmad al-Sulayhiyya ,
who both held power in Yemen in the eleventh century; Sitt al-Mulk , a Fatimid queen of Egypt
in the eleventh century; the Berber queen Zaynab al-Nafzawiyah (r. 1061 – 1107 ); two
thirteenth-century Mamluk queens, Shajar al-Durr in Cairo and Radiyyah in Delhi; six Mongol
queens, including Kutlugh Khatun (thirteenth century) and her daughter Padishah Khatun of the
Kutlugh-Khanid dynasty; the fifteenth-century Andalusian queen Aishah al-Hurra , known by the
Spaniards as Sultana Madre de Boabdil ; Sayyida al-Hurra , governor of Tetouán in Morocco (r.
1510 – 1542 ); and four seventeenth-century Indonesian queens.

More rights than one might think

Some Americans believe that Muslim women are oppressed by their religion, forced to cover
themselves completely, and denied education and other basic rights. It is true that Muslim
women, like women all over the world, have struggled against inequality and restrictive practices
in education, work force participation, and family roles. Many of these oppressive practices,
however, do not come from Islam itself, but are part of local cultural traditions. (To think about
the difference between religion and culture, ask yourself if the high rate of domestic violence in
the United States is related to Christianity, the predominant religion.)
In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western
women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was
given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets.
Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce
should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own
last name after marriage.

The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the
Quran:

 Forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
  Instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
 Insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
 Gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
 Gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
 Gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only
half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried
female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
 While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less
frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi
Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you
cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even
mandatory.

The Quran and the role of women

As the Islamic state and religion expanded, interpretations of the gender roles laid out in the
Quran varied with different cultures. For example, some religious scholars in ninth- and 10th-
century Iraq were prescribing more restrictive roles for women, while elite women in Islamic
Spain were sometimes able to bend these rules and mix quite freely with men (see Walladah bint
Mustakfi below).
Some contemporary women -- and men as well -- reject the limitations put on women and are
reinterpreting the Quran from this perspective.

Local culture traditions

Before the arrival of Islam in the seventh century, upper-class women in Byzantine society
and Sassanian women of the royal harem wore the veil as a mark of their high status. This
custom was adopted by elite women in early Islamic society in the same region. Many nomadic
women, however, maintained their traditional freedom of movement and less restrictive dress
codes even after conversion to Islam.Quranic rights for women were not always followed,
depending on the strength of local patriarchal customs. Women in 19th-century Ottoman Egypt,
for example, were often not given the full inheritance due them by law. If they challenged the
family members who withheld their money in an Islamic court, however, they could win. This is
still the case in family law practices in some countries.

Female political leaders in Muslim societies

Some women in Muslim societies have been prominent political actors. Female relatives of the
Prophet Muhammad were particularly important in the early Muslim community because they
knew his practice and teachings so well. Other women came to power through fathers or
husbands. Still others wielded power behind the scenes.
 Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in
battle (the Battle of Camel).
 Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
 Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
 Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the
throne for even longer.
  The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a
period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
 Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a
women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first
half of the 20th century.

Today there is a small but growing number of women in the parliaments of Turkey, Egypt,
Jordan, and Lebanon, and in the fall of 2002, the Moroccan parliament is hoping to bring women
into 25 percent of its seats. Contemporary Muslim women heads of state have included
Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Tansu Ciller of Turkey, and
Khaleda Zia and Sheik Hasina Wazed of Bangladesh.

Women as religious leaders

Sufism is an important branch of Islam emphasizing mysticism and one's personal relationship
with God. The tenets of Sufism were first articulated by a woman named Rabia, a freed slave
who became a prominent scholar in the eighth-century city of Basra in Iraq. She refused to marry
because she did not want any earthly distractions from her love of God. Fatima, the Prophet
Muhammad's daughter, and Zaynab, the Prophet's granddaughter, are also very important role
models of piety for women in the Islamic world.
Contemporary women are also important religious leaders. Zaynab al-Ghazali led the women's
wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are numerous women teachers, preachers, and
Islamist leaders in contemporary Iran, one example being Zahra Rahnavard. In the United States,
Riffat Hassan is a well-known American Muslim scholar.

Individual personality and abilities

Whatever the cultural and economic background of a woman, her own abilities and personality
greatly determine what she can achieve in her society.
 Khadija, first wife of the Prophet, was a confident and shrewd businesswoman. She first
hired the Prophet to lead her trading caravans, then proposed marriage to him although
she was many years his senior. She was the first person to convert to Islam.
 Walladah bint Mustakfi, a spirited noblewoman and noted poet of 11th-century Cordoba,
gave parties with both men and women where she read her poetry. She declared, "I am by
God fit for great things/and go my way armed with pride."
 The contemporary singer Umm Kulthum, who came from a modest village background,
was considered by many to be the voice and conscience of Egypt. Even today her
memory and music have great appeal throughout the Arab world.

The "veil"
The veil is often seen in the West as a symbol of Muslim women's subordinate position in
society, but its meaning and use vary enormously in Muslim societies.
 The Quran directs both men and women to dress modestly, but the actual interpretation
and implementation of this rule varies enormously.
 Historically, the veil has been related to social class, not religion. The veil was first
adopted from pre-Islamic Byzantine and Persian customs. In most areas, poor and rural
women have covered themselves less than urban and elite women.
  Within Islam, head coverings (hijab) vary by culture. They range from loose scarves to
veils and full-length coverings, such as the burqa worn by many Afghan women. There is
also a new style called "Islamic dress," in which a loose coat is worn with a scarf tied
over the hair. Covering of the face was more common in the past than it is today, more so
in some regions than others. Head covering is not solely a facet of Islam, however, and
women of many cultures and religions cover their heads in different ways.
 Veiling rules vary from country to country. In the modern period, strict laws about
women's dress are often used to emphasize the religious orientation of a particular
government, as in Iran or Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Turkey does not allow women
to wear the veil in public offices or universities because the Turkish state is committed to
a more secular identity. The veil is also discouraged in Tunisia. In all cases, many
citizens are dissatisfied with the law.

Civilized humanity has slowly moved towards the equal treatment of women and the recognition
of women’s equal rights. Religions are one of the oldest and the most persistent obstacles on the
way of women’s equality and freedom. Indeed, religion is women’s enemy and it is the nature of
all religions particularly Islam to look backwards to past ancient times and antiquated values.
Women will be universally equal someday, when that day comes, it will arrive in spite of
all religions and as a result of a just and powerful fight against Islam.