Amina Wadud’s “How Percepteions of woman influence interpretations of the Qur’an”

This reading contributes a gender-inclusive approach to one of the most fundamental disciplines in Islamic thought,
Qu'ranic exegesis. Wadud breaks down specific texts and key words which have been used to limit women's public
and private role, even to justify violence toward Muslim women, revealing that their original meaning and context defy
such interpretations. What her analysis clarifies is the lack of gender bias, precedence, or prejudice in the essential
language of the Qur'an. Indeed, her understanding of the Qu'ran confirms women's equality and constitutes legitimate
grounds for contesting the unequal treatment women have experienced historically--and continue to experience
legally--in Muslim communities.

The details of the interpretations done by male muslim scholars reflect their subjective choices and not necessarily
the intent of the text.
the reading briefly explains the traditional tafsir(of the whole Qur’an) by women.
the traditional tafsir written exclusively by males included male experiences and ,women and women experiences
were either excluded or interpreted through the male vision, perspective, desire or needs of women.
the method of interpretation taken by Wadud - Hermeneutical Model;
It includes i)the context in which the text was written(revelation).
ii) the grammatical composition of the text(how it says what it says)
iii) the whole text, it world view.
She argues that the whole idea of language and prior text(i.e knowledge of the language and culture of interpretation)
is lacking. She uses the argument that if a text is interpreted with a specific world view and prior text, it prevents
readers in different contexts to come to terms with their own relationship to the text(the text becomes very
shortsighted)… She further says that the Qur’an must be flexible enough to accommodate innumerable cultural
situations because of its claims to be universally beneficial to those who believe. Hence the assertion that there is
only one interpretation of the Qur’an limits the extent of the text.
women are distinguished from men in their creation, capacity and function in the society. These attributed values
describe women as weak, inferior, inherently evil, intellectually incapable and spiritually lacking. These evaluations
are used to claim that women are not suitable for functioning in some ways in the society.
Qur’an aims to attain compatible mutually supportive functional relationships between men and women as is clear
from its different verses. Qur’an doesn’t support or propose a single role or single definition of a set of roles,
exclusively for each gender across every culture.
So it is clear that Qur’an has given freedom over the distribution of labor in a family which means the male members
are not only responsible for the care taking of the family instead it depends on culture to culture. This is in fact very
important as Qur’an has guidance for all times and space.
regarding women, Quran prohibited a sum of evil practices but remained neutral towards social patriarchy, marital
patriarchy, economic hierarchy and the division of labor between the males and females within a particular family.
Wadud exemplifies her argument; as the high class women of Arabia were veiled and secluded(which shows
modesty) as a signature of protection before Islam, Qur’an acknowledged this virtue and hence modesty was made
an important part of religion. So it is modesty that is important not what was practiced in Arabia, as that varies from
culture to culture.
Wadud finally discusses two important problems that women face in our society; Nushuz and Witness.
With respect to Nushuz i.e keeping marital harmony, there’s a conflict of interpretations on a verse that is translated
as : “So good women are qanitat, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you
fear[nushuz], admonish them, banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you ,seek not a way
against them.”
Amina interprets the verse and also gives a comparison with the interpretation made by male scholars. The word
qanitat is taken as obedient by the male but it means to be ‘good’. People have made use of this verse in claiming
that a wife should be most obedient and then “obedient to her husband” but in fact this only guides the wife to be
good. In case of disorder between husband and wife Qur’an gives three possible solutions i.e A verbal solution,
separation is indicated in extreme conditions and lastly ‘scourge’ is permitted.
Man and wife should solve their troubles through talks, this is what Qur’an prefers. If not then the second case allows
men to bed them apart, this will give both of them the time to think calmly about their relation and come to a result.
The separation is effective and helps both to come to a solution. This is indicated as the separation time before
divorce. Lastly as suggested in a verse as ‘daraba’ which means to strike. But how can Islam being such a peaceful
and lovely religion allow violence. Amina argues that daraba doesn't necessarily means to strike. She shows this by
using another word where daraba is used when someone leaves or ‘strikes out’ on a journey. Hence the last solution
is to way apart or divorce, not to create violence as is interpreted by males and hence our society exhibits a lot of
violence on women due to this. Many people doesn’t want to convert to Islam and they give the reason that women
are not treated humanely in this religion while as we know Islam is the only religion that gives such a high respect and
value to women and their rights.
The 2nd issue is that of a women as potential witness in Qur’an. Qur’an takes one male witness equal to two female
witnesses. This was taken by the people as ‘one male is as good as two females’. Amina says that this was due to
the fact that women have weaker power of memory in financial matters is most of the time this isn’t their field of work
hence if one women makes error the other can remind her.
Maulvi Iftakhar Zaman’s Towards Islamic ways of Islamisation

Maulvi has discussed mainly about three important prospects that go side by side; ahkaam, masalih and dawah.
Ahkaam are the commandments of Shari'ah that are derived from Qur’an and hadith. These ahkaam embody
maslihah. As deen is for the betterment of mankind, each of the ahkaam will embody a maslihah for man.
Ahkaam must also take the environment or the surroundings into account. Such as a man’s look at a woman may be
meaningless in one culture, while compliment in another, at the same time bad manners in the third.
The ahkaam in the changed world may or may not achieve what they were meant for as the modern world has new
social situations. For example the value of qisaas in maintaining peace in a society with a long tradition of feuds is far
more evident than its value in maintaining peace in lets suppose a car accident in a modern cosmopolitan city.
The thesis that we must reconsider the ahkaam in the light of changes in the social structure is often mistakenly taken
to imply that Islam is time bound. This is the result of a confusion of shari’ah and its particular interpretations . Islam is
perennial, although particular formulas of fiqh may be time bound. For example Allah’s command for Adl is perennial
notwithstanding the fact that Adl can mean cutting off a thief’s hand at one time and not doing so at another.
Ahkaam are a tool of human welfare, so change in ahkaam with changing social structure is hence to achieve
maximum good for human at all times. But people misunderstand ahkaam for example an economist will look only at
certain ahkaam to discover the economic effects. This unfortunate specialisation has narrowed down the outlook of
ahkaam and lead to misconceptions. One must have knowledge of all ahkaam so that he may realize what Allah has
promised to give him for his obedience.
The cardinal rule in dawah is to show man that his benefit(maslihah) lies in Islam and not away from it. We not merely
claim this but prove it scientifically to the modern man for example salah is not just a call for prayer but also for
exercise . Similarly by distributing wealth(Zakah) we create a sense of equality in the society and not just we endorse
it, we ascribe this endorsement to Allah who claims equity a goal worth working for.
Most of us look for what we can gain in this world but as dawah is most of the time for hereafter people even the non
believers turn their eyes from ahkaam as this is what they can’t physically be assured of. Considering this the
Prophet(SAW) always reminded people of the pain and pleasures of the hereafter.
When one comes to know about the dawah and scientifically proven benefits of the ahkaam it gives a pleasure of joy
in obedience as Islam has always been there for human welfare. Regarding this the Marx perceived that they can’t
appreciate the superiority of Islam’s solution to these human problems(Marxism is the theory the followers of which
thrived to achieve equality) over the solution Marx proposed.
Islam has always been appreciated by westerners despite the fact that they have very little knowledge or knowledge
specific to any single matter. But a point to be noticed is that why don’t they convert to Islam despite having such a
high respect for the religion? It is mostly because muslims have failed to present the Islam as it really is. A muslims
view of the golden era of Islam would be that of Agra, Cordoba Granada even though we all agree that the golden
period of Islam was that of Prophet(SAW).
the modern anxiety to see Islam as a ‘complete’ religion has resulted in an imbalance ; in emphasising the
completeness of Islam we have de emphasised the fact that it is basically a religion, a way to get close to Allah and
get Allah’s love, Jannah and maghfirah by total subservience. For non believers it may just be a very nice way of
living but for a muslim it is religious obligations.