In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This passage aims at the organisation of a certain aspect of financial dealings in Islamic society, in order that such dealings be conducted with purity and good-will.

It goes on to establish the rights of earning and ownership to women on an equal footing with men, according to their respective dues. It legislates for pledges or contracts of allegiance, which were observed in pre-Islamic days as well as in the early years of Islam. The aim here is to liquidate this system and make blood relations the only claimants to inheritance.

The passage is yet another lesson aiming at the refinement of Islamic character. At the same time it lays down new legal provisions. The two purposes go hand in hand, complementing each other. What God legislates for Islamic society refines the Islamic character and organises all practical aspects of life. Legal provisions are intertwined with instructions which cultivate consciences and create a genuine feeling that the seriousness of Islamic law takes every care of the interests of the community. This ensures that they are properly implemented. Moreover, both the legal provisions and moral instructions enhance awareness that this system is well-balanced and complete. It provides solutions to problems encountered in practical life, while enhancing at the same time the role of human conscience.

Believers, do not devour each other’s wealth illegally, unless it be through trade which you conduct by mutual consent. Do not kill yourselves, for God is merciful to you.

(Verse 29)

This passage begins with a prohibition against illegally devouring other people’s money, explaining that it is only through trade that people may gain money from one another. Illegal gains are described as killing oneself and as utter loss. This is coupled with a warning against incurring punishment in the hereafter as well as a comforting touch in the form of a promise of forgiveness and assured help. The passage also emphasises that people must not covet what others may have. They should instead ask God to give them what they wish, for He is the One who gives in abundance. These directives come side by side with the establishment of the rights of earning and ownership to both man and woman. At this point, the Qur’ān stresses that God is aware of all things. Instructions given with regard to contracts of allegiance stressing the duty to fulfil these contracts and pledges are followed with a statement that God witnesses everything. Both statements of God’s knowledge leave very strong impressions on us. They come, after all, from God, who is well aware of man’s constitution and what influences his attitude.

The passage begins with an address to believers prohibiting all forms of illegal gain and profit. This suggests that what follows aims at the eradication of traces of past, ignorant life from Islamic society. When Muslims are addressed by God as believers, the address serves as a reminder of what faith entails.

What we have here is a prohibition on devouring one another’s wealth illegally.

This includes all forms of financial transactions that God has not sanctioned or has forbidden, such as cheating, bribery, gambling, monopoly, hoarding of essential goods and all forbidden forms of trade, particularly usury. We are not certain whether this verse was revealed before or after usury, in all its forms, was outlawed.

If it preceded that, then it serves as a preliminary prohibition for usury as the worst form of devouring other people’s wealth illegally. Alternatively, if this verse was revealed after the prohibition of usury, then it includes usury as an illegal form of financial transaction.

An exception is made of commercial transactions whereby the buyer and seller enter into these willingly: “Believers, do not devour each other’s wealth illegally, unless it be through trade which you conduct by mutual consent.” (Verse 29) Linguistically speaking, this is a special way of making an exception. It means that if a commercial transaction is conducted by mutual consent, then it is not included in the prohibition.

The way that this is expressed in the Qur’ān suggests that there is an element of confusion that combines it with other dealings, described as the illegal devouring of other people’s money. We can understand this better if we remind ourselves of the Qur’ānic verses which prohibit usury in Sūrah 2, The Cow. We commented on these verses at length in Volume I, pp. 355-71. These verses quote usurers objecting to the prohibition of all usury, claiming that “trade is just the same as usury”. (2: 275) God replies to them in the same verse, explaining: “but God has made trade lawful and usury forbidden”. In defence of their accursed system, usurers were guilty of deliberate misrepresentation by claiming that trade which results in a profit produces an increase of the trader’s money in the same way as usury, which also increases the usurer’s money. Hence their claim that it was wrong to outlaw usury while making trade lawful.

The fact is that a great gulf separates ordinary trade transactions and usurious dealings. There is also a great difference between the benefits trade generates to people and the destructive effects brought about by usury.

Trade is a useful medium that brings commodities to consumers. Thus, it is a marketing service providing the motivation to improve goods and commodities and to make them available to the consumer. It is a service to both producer and consumer, which results in a profit gained by the trader. Skill and effort are essential for the gain to be made. A trader runs the risk of loss as also the prospect of profit.

None of these benefits can be attributed to usury. Usury places a heavy burden on industry, in the shape of interest, which is added to the cost of commodities. It also burdens the trader and consumer with the payment of interest paid by producers. As occurred when the capitalist system managed to gather strength, the usury system imposes a certain direction on industry and investment which does not take into account the interests of industry itself or of the consumers. The first priority is given to an increase in profits so that interest on loans can be paid. No objection is raised even when priority is given to the production of luxury goods, even though the majority of people cannot meet their basic needs. No objection is heard even when large investments are devoted to projects aiming at the illegal satisfaction of lust. The destructive effects of all this on society are not even considered. Additionally, there is the element of ever-continuing profit given to capital, which runs no risk of loss and does not rely on skill or effort which are necessary for trade. The indictment of the usurious system has many more elements, all of which demand the death sentence for this system. Islam issued this sentence long ago.

It is this type of confusion between usury and trade which necessitated this clarification to be made in the form of an exception, stated in the Qur’ānic verse as:

“Believers, do not devour each other’s wealth illegally, unless it be through trade which you conduct by mutual consent.” (Verse 29)

The verse ends with a startling comment: “Do not kill yourselves, for God is merciful to you.” (Verse 29) This is how the Qur’ān comments on devouring one another’s money illegally. It suggests that such practices have a highly destructive effect on society. It is indeed a crime, which amounts to murder. God forbids the believers to practise it because He is so merciful to them.

It is indeed the crime of suicide. Every time the practices of devouring other people’s money illegally, such as usury, cheating, gambling, monopoly, hoarding, embezzlement, bribery, theft, and the selling of un-sellable things such as honour, honesty, and moral and religious values, spread within a community, then that community is sentenced to inevitable self-destruction. Such practices have always been rampant in ignorant societies, old and modern alike. God wants to spare the believers this type of self-destruction and lighten their load. He aims to save them from their weaknesses, for these are bound to destroy them whenever they follow the dictates of lust in preference to His directives.

Whoever does this with malicious intent and by way of willful wrongdoing, We shall make to suffer the Fire. That is very easy for God. (Verse 30) If you avoid the most serious of what you are forbidden, We will erase your bad deeds, and shall cause you to enter an abode of glory. (Verse 31)

This first of these two verses warns those who unjustly and illegally devour each other’s money that they will suffer the punishment of the hereafter after having destroyed themselves in this life. This applies to them all, since responsibility in such matters is a collective one. Any community which allows such injustice to spread is doomed in this life as well as in the life to come: “Whoever does this with malicious intent and by way of willful wrongdoing, We shall make to suffer the Fire. That is very easy for God.” (Verse 30)

As Islam makes its legislation known to people, it appoints everyone a watchful guard to ensure its implementation. It also makes the whole community watchful over one another, since the whole community shares in the responsibility to implement these legal provisions and the destruction which attends upon its failure to do so. Such destruction is bound to engulf the whole community. The punishment in the hereafter for allowing injustice to spread will apply to everyone in the community. That is certainly easy for God since nothing stands in His way. His law never fails when the conditions for its operation exist.

God, however, promises the believers to bestow His mercy on them and to forgive them their sins if they avoid cardinal sins. He, thus, takes into account their weaknesses and reassures them of their destiny once they refrain from the gravest of sins: “If you avoid the most serious of what you are forbidden, We will erase your bad deeds, and shall cause you to enter an abode of glory.” (Verse 31)

This religion of ours is indeed very tolerant and its method easy to implement.

These qualities go hand in hand with its appeal to man’s sense of nobility, purity, cleanliness and willingness to obey God. Its commandments, as well as its legal provisions and punishments, work for the same aim of refining people’s characters and the establishment of a pure and healthy society. It does not ignore human weakness and does not charge man with what is beyond his ability. It is not unaware of the complexity of factors working on man’s mind and does not ignore human nature and motivation. It strikes the right balance between duty and ability, motives and restraints, ideals and necessities, orders and prohibitions, forgiveness of sin and fearful punishment for it.

This religion of Islam is satisfied that a person turns to God with sincerity and does his best to obey Him and win His pleasure. He will then find God’s mercy and compassion, which overlook weakness, forgive slips, accept repentance and receive warmly those who turn back after having gone astray.

What signifies that a certain person does his best to seek God’s pleasure is that he avoids the cardinal sins God has forbidden. Such sins, all of them well known, cannot be committed unwittingly or through lack of knowledge. Their commitment by anyone signifies that they have not made the required effort to resist temptation.

Nevertheless, when a person who has committed such cardinal sins turns to God in genuine and sincere repentance, God, Who is committed to showing mercy to His servants, accepts his repentance. It is He who describes the God- fearing as those who “when they commit a gross indecency or wrong themselves, remember God and pray for the forgiveness of their sins — for who but God forgives sins? — and do not knowingly persist in doing the wrong they may have done.” (3: 135)

What we have here, however, is an assurance that God straightaway forgives the offences and effaces the errors of those of His servants who avoid cardinal sin. God here gives this promise and happy news to the believers.

Now, what constitutes these cardinal sins? Several aĥādīth speak of certain types of cardinal sin. We do not, however, have a full list of them all in any one ĥadīth. Each mentions some, which suggests that these aĥādīth addressed certain situations, mentioning the cardinal sins relevant to each situation. It is not difficult for a Muslim to identify these cardinal sins, although they may differ in number and gravity according to situations and generations.

It is useful to mention here a story demonstrating how Islam refined the sensitivity of `Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb, a man well known for his great piety and an ever-present consciousness of the need to avoid all sin. Islam gave `Umar a well- balanced insight that helped him show the moderation required of a leader when he shouldered the responsibility of running the affairs of the Muslim state. The story, reported by al-Ĥasan, mentions that some Egyptians spoke with `Abdullāh ibn `Amr, a Companion of the Prophet and the son of the governor of Egypt at the time of `Umar. In essence, they said: “We have observed that there are certain things mentioned in God’s Book that are not enforced, although He has ordered these to be implemented. We thought that we should speak to the Caliph about them.” Hence they, accompanied by `Abdullāh ibn `Amr, went to Madīnah. `Umar met with Abdullāh ibn `Amr and enquired as to the purpose of his journey. When `Abdullāh answered him, `Umar asked whether he had obtained the permission of his father.

The reporter of the story does not actually say what `Abdullāh’s answer was but that nonetheless `Abdullāh explained why he had come and that this pertained to the Eygptians’ queries. `Umar, therefore, asked him to call them all to a meeting with him.

When they met, `Umar spoke to the first man and put to him the following question: “I ask you by God and by what you owe to Islam, have you read the whole of the Qur’ān?” He answered in the affirmative. `Umar asked whether he had implemented God’s Book fully in his own life. He replied that he had not. The reporter comments that had the man answered in the affirmative, `Umar would have challenged him on this. `Umar continued his questioning and asked whether the man had implemented Islam fully with regard to what he saw or what he spoke or what he did. He asked everyone of the group the same questions. ‘When he had finished, he said: “Are you asking `Umar to force people to implement God’s Book? Our Lord knows that we will be committing errors.” He than read this verse: “If you avoid the most serious of what you are forbidden, We will erase your bad deeds.” (Verse 31) He then asked those Egyptians whether the people in Madinah were aware of the purpose of their visit. When they answered in the negative, he said that had they known, he would have used their visit for admonition.

We observe from this story how `Umar, who was exemplary in his piety and fear of God, showed his refined sense and realism: “Our Lord knows that we will be committing errors.” Indeed, we cannot be otherwise. What matters, however, is the willingness and determination to do one’s duty, and to try one’s level best to do it well. Thus, serious effort is balanced with moderation.

Do not covet the bounties God has bestowed more abundantly on some of you than on others. Men shall have a benefit of what they earn and women shall have a benefit of what they earn. Therefore, ask God to give you out of His bounty. God is a witness of everything. (Verse 32)

This verse, together with the one that follows, continue the discussion of the ties and transactions which exist between men and women. They also speak of the covenants of loyalty and their relevance to the system of inheritance that this sūrah discusses earlier.

First, we have a general prohibition against coveting the gifts God has favoured some believers with. This is a general statement that applies to all sorts of favours and privileges, which may include functions, positions, abilities, talents, wealth and other luxuries. A believer should appeal to God and pray to Him to grant him of His grace. He should not waste time feeling sorry for himself nor with all that such an attitude generates of harbouring grudges and greed, of feeling angry, deprived, or unjustly treated. Such feelings may give rise to thinking ill of God and His fair distribution. To harbour such a feeling is disastrous because it substitutes worry and misery for content and self confidence. Entertaining such evil thoughts wastes one’s energy. To turn to God directly and to pray to Him for His grace is to turn to the source of all grace; it can never be exhausted and does not repel anyone. Moreover, it is in God that all hopes are placed and to Him alone that one should turn as one goes about, seeking one’s share of God’s grace.

As has already been said, this is a general directive. The fact that it comes at this point in the sūrah, as well as in a number of reports which speak of the occasion when it was revealed, may indicate that this verse refers specifically to a certain type of favour, namely, the difference in shares of inheritance between men and women.

This is an extremely important aspect of the relationship between the two sexes which needs to be established on the solid foundation of mutual acceptance and complementarity, so that contentment prevails in the family and the Muslim society at large. Despite the importance of this aspect, it does not limit the generality of the statement. Authoritative commentaries on the Qur’ān speak of both aspects, giving reports in support of both:

Umm Salamah, a wife of the Prophet, once said to him: “Messenger of God, men fight when we do not, and we receive half a share of inheritance.” God subsequently revealed: “Do not covet the bounties God has bestowed more abundantly on some of you than on others.” Another report also quotes Umm Salamah as saying to the Prophet: “Messenger of God, we do not fight so that we may be martyrs, and we do not have an equal share of inheritance”. This verse was then revealed. Later, God revealed the verse in which He says: “I will not suffer the work of any worker among you, male or female, to be lost.” (3:

195)

Al-Suddī, an early commentator on the Qur’ān, mentions that some men said: “We want to have twice the reward of women, in the same way as we have two shares of inheritance.” Some women said: “We want to have a reward similar to that of martyrs. We cannot fight. Had we been required to fight, we would have done so.” God turned down all that and said to them: “Pray for My grace.” A similar view is attributed to another commentator, named Qatādah.

Other commentators stress the generality of the verse. Ibn `Abbās is quoted as saying: “No one should say: I wish I had as much money or as many children as this or that person. God has prohibited all that. He should pray to God to grant him of His grace.” Similar views have been expressed by Al-Ĥasan, Muĥammad ibn Sīrīn, `Aţā’ and others.

The first three reports suggest the presence of un-Islamic concepts in the relationship between men and women. There is also an air of competition between men and women. This is probably the result of the new freedoms and rights given by Islam to women, in accordance with its overall concept which honours the human race and treats both sexes with fairness. Islam, however, wants its complete system to be implemented, as a whole, not for the benefit of men at the expense of women, nor for the benefit of women at the expense of men. It wants its system to be implemented for the benefit of humanity as a whole, and for the benefit of Muslim society as it establishes the values of propriety, morality, goodness and absolute justice.

In its distribution of the functions and shares of inheritance between men and women, Islam observes human nature, which has made man different from woman and given each of them his or her distinctive characteristics. This is to enable them to discharge their respective duties, not for their own benefit but for the benefit of human life, which can only achieve proper fulfilment and its ultimate objectives through the multiplicity of characteristics, functions and duties between the two different sexes. Because the characteristics and functions of man and woman are different, their positions and shares vary. The ultimate beneficiary is that great institution which we call human life.

When we consider the Islamic system as a whole and then consider that particular aspect which organises relationships between the two parts of the single soul from which both men and women have been created, we find no room for such ancient arguments of the type mentioned in the reports quoted above. Nor can we find any room for modern arguments advanced by shallow-minded people of both sexes.

It is useless and futile to try to depict matters as if a raging battle is going on between the two sexes in which points and victories are scored. The attempt by some serious writers to discredit women and to attribute all sorts of vices to them is equally futile, whether it is made in the name of Islam or under the guise of scholarly analysis. There is no question of a battle whatsoever. There are simply differences of characteristics and potentials. Differences in the proper distribution of tasks and specialities which achieves both complementarity and absolute justice, as can only be expected from the Divine method.

There may be a battle of this sort in ignorant societies which initiate their own systems according to their will and which serve their immediate interests, or, more probably, to serve the interests of certain classes, families or individuals. Such societies may deprive women of certain rights due to their defective understanding of man as a whole and the function of each of the two sexes. On the other hand, they may deprive women of some of their rights for economic reasons, such as giving a woman a lesser wage than a man who does the same job, or giving her a smaller share of inheritance or depriving her of the right to manage her own property.

There can be no room whatsoever for such a battle under Islam. There is no point in competing for worldly benefits or for an attack on either man or woman in order to undermine their positions and magnify their weaknesses. Given an Islamic outlook, no one can imagine that men and women, who are different in their characteristics and physical constitutions, should not have different tasks, duties and positions. To imagine that is to betray a total misunderstanding of the Islamic system and the nature of both sexes and their respective functions.

Let us now consider the question of jihād and martyrdom, and women’s share in all that. This was a question of concern to God- fearing women in the noble first generation of Muslims, which was distinguished by its dedication to the hereafter as it looked after its daily affairs. We will also consider the question of inheritance and the shares assigned by Islam to men and women. This question not only preoccupied some men and women in the past but continues to be raised even today.

God has not imposed the duty to fight on women. Nor has He forbidden them to fight when there is need for their participation in jihād alongside men. In Islamic wars a number of individual women took an active part in the fighting, thus not confining themselves to support duties alone. Their numbers, however, were very few, taking part only when needed. This was by no means the normal practice. It was the exception, not the rule, because God, in His wisdom, has not made fighting obligatory for women.

Women have not been required to fight in war because they give birth to men who do the fighting. By her physical and psychological constitution, a woman is made to give birth to men and to bring them up so that they can face life and participate in jihād when necessary. In this particular domain, her ability and usefulness is greater than that of man. Every single cell in her body is made physically and psychologically suitable for this purpose. This is not merely a question of physical constitution. It applies to every single cell, from the moment of conception and the decision made by the Creator, praised be He, which determines the sex of that pregnancy. Physical, organic, and psychological factors take secondary importance.

She is also more useful when one considers long-term national interests.

When men fall dead in war, leaving behind women, the nation is left with productive members who give birth to children in order to compensate for the decrease in their numbers. The same cannot be the case if war were to claim the lives of women and men in equal numbers, or were it to claim the lives of more women than men. Under Islam, a single man using all the concessions and abilities available to him can make four women produce children in order to fill the vacuum left after the slaughter that takes place in war. A thousand men cannot make a single woman produce more children than one man can in order to redress the balance that takes place in society after war. This is only one aspect of the Divine wisdom behind relieving women of the duty of fighting. Other aspects relate to social morality and the nature of society, as well as the need to preserve the essential qualities of both sexes. This is a subject which deserves fuller treatment. As for reward, both men and women are reassured by God. It is sufficient for every human being to do well in fulfilling the tasks assigned to him or her in order to achieve a good position with God.

As for inheritance, it may appear at first glance that the general rule which assigns “to the male a share equal to that of two females” favours man. This superficial view, however, will soon disappear to be replaced by a comprehensive treatment of the respective positions of man and woman and their mutually complementary duties. A basic rule in the Islamic system states that “gain is commensurate with duty”. The man pays a dowry to the woman when he marries her, while she pays him no dowry whatsoever. He supports her and their children while she is exempt from such a duty, even when she has money of her own. The least that can happen to a man who is negligent of this duty is that he be imprisoned. A man is required to pay the ransom and compensation for accidental death and injuries caused to others by members of his family, while a woman is exempt from all this.

Moreover, a man is required to support the insolvent and those who are unable to earn their living in his family, according to their degree of kinship, while the woman is exempt from the duty of mutual family support. When divorce or separation takes place, the man pays his divorced or estranged wife compensation for breast-feeding his child and for her custody in the same way as he pays her own maintenance. As we see, then, the Islamic system is a comprehensive one, which distributes inheritance according to the distribution of liabilities. Since the man bears more liabilities than the woman, his share of inheritance is greater.

This system also takes into consideration human nature and man’s ability to earn his family’s livelihood and to provide the woman with security and comfort so that she can discharge her responsibilities in bringing up the new generation. No monetary value can be placed on this responsibility of hers. Her contribution to the general welfare of society is far superior to any product or service that anyone can render. We can, then, discern the elements of perfect balance in the Islamic system, laid down by the One whose knowledge and wisdom are absolute.

Let us consider here the right of individual ownership given by Islam to women:

“Men shall have a benefit of what they earn and women shall have a benefit of what they earn.” (Verse 32) This right was denied to women by the ignorant society of Arabia as well as by other ignorant societies of the past. Very rarely were women’s right to own acknowledged. Indeed, even when it was acknowledged, ways and means were found to deprive her of that right. The woman herself was considered an object, the ownership of which could be transferred by inheritance, in the same way as other possessions.

Modern ignorant societies, which claim to have given women rights and afforded them respect unequalled under any other system, still try to deny women their right to inheritance. Some of these societies give the whole estate to the eldest male heir.

Others make it necessary for a woman who wants to make any financial transaction to obtain the prior consent of her guardian, and they even make it necessary for a woman to have her husband endorse any financial deal she makes with her own property before it can go through. This remains the case even after the revolutions made by women to achieve their emancipation. Such actions have, indeed, led to undermining the position of women in both the family and society as also weakened public morality.

Islam has given the right of individual ownership to women of its own accord.

Women did not have to launch a revolution, form women’s societies or enter parliament in order to claim such a right. Islam’s motives are found in its overall view of humanity. It considers that both parts of the single soul, from which men and women issue forth, are honourable. Moreover, it makes the family the basic unit of its social system. Hence, the atmosphere in the family must be one of love and mutual care. The rights of every individual in the family are safeguarded. It is for this reason that Islam gives both men and women equal rights of earning and ownership.

Before we finish our commentary on this verse, we would like to give the following quotation from Dr `Abd al-Wāĥid Wafī who explains in his book, Human Rights, the status of women in Islam as compared to their status in the West.

Islam gives both man and woman an equal status in Front of the law and in all civil rights. This equality applies to married and unmarried women alike.

Under Islam, marriage is different from what is practised in most Western countries. A Muslim woman does not lose her name, civil status, and eligibility to make contracts or right of ownership when she gets married.

After her marriage, she retains the surname of her own family and continues to enjoy all her rights as before, including the undertaking of any responsibility and entering into any contract, to sell, buy, pledge, make a gift or a will, etc. She also continues to enjoy her right of independent ownership.

Under Islam, a married woman is accorded all her civil rights and she may have her own wealth independently from that of her husband, who may not take any part of her money, small or large. God says in the Qur’ān: “If you wish to take one wife in place of another and you have given the first one a large sum of money, do not take away anything of it. Would you take it away though that constitutes a gross injustice and a manifest sin? (Verse 20) How can you take it away when each of you has been privy with the other, and they have received from you a most solemn pledge?” (Verses 20-1) He also says: “It is not lawful for you to take back anything of what you have given them as dowry.” (2: 229) If a husband is forbidden to take anything of what he had originally given to his wife when he married her, then it is even more unlawful for him to take any part of her own property, unless she gives it to him willingly and freely. On this particular point, God states: “Give women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own accord, choose to give up to you a part of it, then you may take it with pleasure.” (Verse 4) Nor is it lawful for a husband to dispose of any part of his wife’s property unless she permits him to do so or gives him a power of attorney to make a contract on her behalf. When she gives him such a power of attorney, she retains the right to cancel it and to give a similar power of attorney to someone else.

Even the most civilised of contemporary democracies do not aspire to this standard of equality between men and women. Until very recently, indeed until today, the status of women in France was not much better than that of civil bondage. The law deprives her of the authority to act in many a civil matter. Article 217 of French Civil Law states that “even when a marriage stipulates that the properties of husband and wife are to remain separate, a married woman may not dispose of anything by way of gift, assignment, mortgage or pledge, and may not come into the ownership of anything in return for some or no consideration, unless her husband is party to the contract or gives his consent to it in writing.

Despite the numerous amendments that have been introduced to this Article, much of its import still overshadows the status of women under French law.

Western laws emphasise this bondage imposed on women by endorsing the tradition that a woman loses her own family name at the moment when she gets married. She is no longer called after her father. She adopts her husband’s family name instead. This is simply a token of the loss of her legal status which is merged with that of her husband’s.

Strangely enough, many of our own women try to imitate Western women even in this unjust system. They accept for themselves this low status when they adopt their husbands’ family names, instead of retaining the names of their own families as is the case under the Islamic system. Ironically speaking, this blind imitation is practised by the very women who pose as defenders of the rights of women and advocates of equality between them and men. They are unaware that by their action, they trample over their most important right which has been given to them by Islam to elevate them to the status of equality with men.” 7

The sūrah then regulates those covenants of loyalty that existed before the provisions contained within the system of inheritance were revealed to limit the right of inheritance to close relatives only. Pledges of loyalty used to give shares of inheritance to others as well.

To everyone have We appointed heirs to property left by parents and relatives. As for those with whom you have made covenants give them their share. God is indeed witness to all things. (Verse 33)

Having stated that both men and women have the benefit of what they earn, and having already outlined the shares of inheritance of both males and females, the sūrah now mentions that God has appointed to everyone heirs from among his kinsfolk who will inherit what has come into his possession of the property of his parents and relatives. Through the inheritance system, then, money circulates from one generation to another. Heirs inherit their shares and add to them what they earn before they themselves leave that to their own close relatives. Thus, wealth is not monopolised by a single generation, family or individual. It is continuously circulated and inherited by one generation after another with different shares being given to different heirs, according to the situation.

This is followed by a reference to covenants which Islam initially approved of.

These covenants or pledges of loyalty sometimes allowed wealth to be inherited by non-relatives. There were several types of such covenants in the early period of Islam. There was firstly the covenant of loyalty that came with freeing a slave. When a slave is freed, he becomes a member of his master’s household, as it were. If he commits a crime which requires the payment of blood money, his former master pays this on his behalf, in the same way as he does when such a crime is committed by one of his close relatives. He also inherits him when he dies, leaving no immediate relatives behind.

The second type of covenant was one of pure loyalty. This allowed a non-Arab who had no heirs of his own to make a covenant with an Arab. It accorded him the status of a member of the Arab’s household, whereby the latter would be willing to pay penalties on his behalf such as blood money, and who would inherit him upon his death.

The third type was that which the Prophet established between the Muhājirīn (his Companions who emigrated with him to Madinah) and the Anşār (his Companions from among the inhabitants of Madinah). This allowed an Anşārī to be inherited by one of the Muhājirīn alongside the Anşārī’s own relatives, as if he was one of them, or to their exclusion, if they were unbelievers.

The fourth type of covenant was a straightforward pledge of loyalty stipulating that each of the two parties could inherit the other.

Islam abolished all these covenants, especially the third and fourth types. It stipulated that inheritance is the right of relatives only. It did not, however, abolish those covenants that were already in force. It continued to observe them but it made it clear that no new ones might be made. God states: “As for those with whom you have made covenants give them their share.” (Verse 33) He emphasises this by reminding us that He Himself is a witness to the covenant and to how it is observed: “God is indeed witness to all things.” (Verse 33) The Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “No alliance may be made in Islam. Any covenant of alliance made prior to Islam has only been given added force under Islam.” (Related by Aĥmad and Muslim.)

As it began to liquidate these covenants, Islam followed its normal method concerning financial affairs. Its solutions had no retroactive effect. Usury, for example, was abolished from the very moment its prohibition was revealed. What had been gained in the past was left alone. Although usury contracts were not made lawful, Islam did not order the recipients of usury to return what they had gained. In this instant, past covenants were observed, provided that they led to no new contract. One reason for this is that Islam did not wish to disrupt any practical situations that resulted from such covenants, as these may affect family and social relations. Hence, existing covenants were observed but no new ones were made.

This attitude reveals how Islam wants things to be easy. Moreover, the Islamic method in dealing with social affairs is profound, comprehensive, wise and far reaching. As it announced its abrogations and endorsements, Islam was moulding the Muslim society, purifying it of all traces of ignorance.

The last topic in this passage concerns the regulation of the family and the allocation of duties and responsibilities within it. The sūrah also outlines the measures to be taken in order to protect this social institution against the effects of quarrels and disputes so as to eliminate, as far as possible, any negative effects that could destroy it.

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties with which God has favoured some of them more abundantly than others, and with what they may spend of their own wealth. The righteous women are devout, guarding the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded. (Verse 34)

Before we comment on these verses and outline their psychological and social objectives we need to speak briefly about the Islamic view of the institution of the family and its method of building, protecting and promoting it. However, we cannot speak about this in full detail because to do so would require a whole volume.

God, who has created mankind, is the One who has made duality part of man’s nature, as it is indeed ingrained in all creation: “And of everything We have created pairs, so that you may bear in mind [that God alone is One].” (51: 49) He then willed to make the human pair two halves of the same soul: “Mankind, fear your Lord, who has created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate.” (Verse 1) Part of His purpose behind the meeting between the two halves of the same soul is that it should lead to peaceful existence and be a comfort to body and soul. It is also a means to protect purity and chastity and provides a secure, clean way for human reproduction and the continuity and promotion of human life, under the watchful care of parents.

Different verses in the Qur’ān stress these facts: “Among His signs is that He creates for you mates from among yourselves, so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and compassion between you.” (30: 21) “They are as a garment to you as you are to them.” (2: 187) “Your wives are your tilth; go, then, to your filth as you may desire, but prepare well for yourselves and fear God.” (2: 223) “Believers, ward off from yourselves and your families that fire [of the hereafter] whose fuel is human beings and stones.” (66: 6) “As for the believers whose offspring will have followed them in faith, We shall unite them with their offspring; and We shall not let aught of their deeds go to waste.” (52: 21)

Because the two mates are two halves of the same soul, they stand in the same position in God’s sight. Since God has given mankind a position of honour, He has honoured women, assigning to them the same reward for their good deeds, the same rights of ownership and inheritance, and the same rights of independence, as we have already explained.

Similarly, as regards the great responsibility of the family, which results from the meeting of the two halves of the same soul, God has taken care to detail a complete set of elaborate measures which regulate all aspects of the family institution and all its affairs. This sūrah outlines some of these measures, whilst other measures have been discussed in Volume I, Sūrah 2. Other sūrahs, particularly 24, 33, 65 and 66

include further measures. Together, these measures provide a complete and perfect system for the family. Their comprehensive outlook and attention to detail reflect the great importance Islam attaches to this crucial institution.

We hope that the reader may recall what we have said in earlier volumes about the length of the childhood period and the need of the human child for a caring and supporting environment until he is able to earn his living. What is even more important is that the child should receive the type of care which enables him or her to fulfil their social function in order to contribute to the betterment of human society, so as to leave it in a better state than they receive it. All this is particularly significant in explaining the importance of the family and the great care Islam takes to ensure its protection.

With this in mind, the next verse makes it clear that the man is in charge of the family institution, as God has given him the necessary qualities and training to undertake this task and assigned to him the duty of meeting the family’s living expenses. It also outlines man’s additional task to protect the family against collapse as a result of fleeting whims, delineating the way to deal with these, should they occur. It also explains other “external” measures to which recourse may be made when all “internal” efforts have failed, and a total breakdown threatens not only the spouses but also the young ones who are more vulnerable. We will now look at these measures in some detail.

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties with which God has favoured some of them more abundantly than others, and with what they may spend of their own wealth. (Verse 34)

We have already said that the family is the first institution in human life in the sense that its influence is felt at every stage of human life. Moreover, it derives its importance from the fact that it is within the family that man, the most noble of all creatures according to the Islamic concept of life, is brought up. The running and administration of much inferior institutions, such as those engaged in financial, industrial and commercial affairs is normally assigned to those who are most qualified for the job by their education, training and natural abilities. It is only logical that the same rule be applied to the family, the institution that looks after the upbringing of the noblest creature in the universe, namely, man.

The Divine code of living takes human nature into consideration, as well as the natural abilities given to both man and woman to enable them to discharge the duties assigned to each of them. It maintains justice in the distribution of duties, giving to each of them only the type of duties to which they are suited.

Needless to say, both man and woman are the creation of God, who does not wish to do injustice to anyone He has created. Indeed, He gives each of His creatures the abilities and talents that befit the duties assigned to them.

God has created human beings as males and females, following the “dual” rule which is central to the system of creation. He has given the woman the great tasks of childbearing, breast-feeding and looking after her children. These are not tasks which can be fulfilled without careful preparation, physically, psychologically, and mentally. It is only just, therefore, that the other part, i.e. the man, should be assigned the task of providing the essential needs and the protection required for the woman to fulfil her highly important duties. She could not be given all those tasks and still be required to work in order to earn her living. It is only fair as well that the man be given the physical, mental and psychological qualities which enable him to fulfil his duties in the same way as the woman is given the abilities to fulfil hers. All this is clearly seen in real human life, because God maintains absolute justice among all.

Among the qualities the woman has been given are tenderness, quick reaction, and an instinctive response to the needs of children, without the need for much deliberation and reflection. The essential human need of even a single individual are not left to be deliberated upon at leisure. Response to them is made instinctively, so that they may be met more or less involuntarily. There is no external compulsion in this. It is an impulsive reaction, which the woman mostly enjoys despite the fact that it requires sacrifice from her. This is part of God’s work, which is always perfect.

These are not superficial qualities. Indeed, they are implanted in the woman’s physical, mental and psychological constitution. Some leading scientists believe that they are present in each cell in the woman’s constitution, because they are rooted in the first cell that multiplies to form the foetus and the child.

On the other hand, among the qualities a man is given are toughness, slow reaction and response, as well as proper thought and reflection before action. All his functions, from the early days of being a hunter- gatherer, to fighting for the protection of his wife and children, to earning his living in any way, require some deliberation and consideration before taking a decision and implementing it. These qualities are also deeply rooted in man’s constitution.

Man’s qualities make him more able and better equipped to take charge of the family. Similarly, his duty to support his family, as part of that general distribution of functions, makes him more suited to overall authority. That is because earning his family’s living is part of being in charge. Moreover, looking after the finances of the family is closer to his family duties.

In highlighting these two elements, the Qur’ān states that in Islamic society men are required to look after women. It is an assignment of duties on the basis of natural abilities and the fair distribution of responsibilities. Each party is assigned the duties most suited to its nature.

The man has the proper natural abilities to take charge of the family affairs, a role essential for the proper progress of human life. It is a simple fact that one party is properly equipped for this role and assigned the duty to play it while the other is not.

Hence, it is totally unfair that the latter party should be required, in any situation, to take up these responsibilities in addition to its own. If women are given the necessary practical and scientific training to fulfil these duties, then their ability to play the other role, i.e. that of motherhood, is undermined.

These very serious questions should not be left to human beings to determine at will. When they have been left to human beings to decide, in both past and modern societies, the very existence of mankind was threatened and essential human qualities which distinguish man from other creatures were in danger of extinction.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the rules of human nature force themselves on man, even when people deny them altogether. One aspect of this is the decline in the quality of human life and the serious danger to which it is exposed whenever this rule, which gives man the task and the authority to look after the family, has been violated. Such violation leads to confusion within the family, and is bound to have serious repercussions.

Moreover, women prefer for the man to assume authority and responsibility for the family. Many women worry, feel dissatisfied and unhappy, when they live with men who relinquish their role for any reason. Even women who try to challenge the man’s role readily admit to this.

Another example of the social repercussions brought about by this unnatural family situation is one whereby children suffer from instability. This happens when the father does not play his role, either because of his weak character which allows the mother to overshadow or control him, or because of his early death or in one- parent families. This, in turn, can lead to mental perversion and behavioural deviation.

These are only a few examples through which human nature indicates its presence and the need to organise human life according to its laws.

To elaborate more on the role of the man as the one in charge of the family and its justification is beyond the scope of this commentary. What we need to state here, however, is that it does not by any means lead to the negation of the woman’s character and role in the family home and in society at large. Nor does it mean the cancellation of her civil status. It simply defines her role within the family and how it is run. This is necessary, because the family is a very important institution, and one which must be protected and maintained. In any institution, the observance of certain values does not mean the abrogation of the character or the rights of the partners or the workers. Islam defines the role of the man and what his being in charge means, as well as his duties as the one who takes care of his family, protects it and earns its living.

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties with which God has favoured some of them more abundantly than others, and with what they may spend of their own wealth. The righteous women are devout, guarding the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded. (Verse 34)

The verse moves on to explain the qualities of righteous women, their behaviour and duties within the family. “The righteous women are devout, guarding the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded” (Verse 34) It is, then, in the nature of the righteous, believing woman and part of her essential characteristics to be devoted and obedient. Devotion means willing obedience, motivated by love, not the sort of obedience enforced against one’s will. Hence, the Qur’ān uses the term “devout”, or qānitāt to stress its pleasant psychological connotations, which fit perfectly with the sort of affectionate and compassionate relationship which exists between man and woman, the two parts of the single soul from which all mankind descend. Islam stresses that this relationship is essential in the family home where young ones are reared.

It is also part of the nature and essential characteristics of a devoted, believing woman to guard the sanctity of her relationship with her husband. This she maintains in his presence as well as in his absence. She does not reveal what belongs only to him, as one half of the single soul which combines both of them, even inasmuch as a passing look, let alone a full dishonourable relationship. What is forbidden to reveal is decided neither by him nor by her. It is determined by God. It is “the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded”. It is not a matter of pleasing a husband or allowing what he does not mind to be revealed or what society requires to be exposed, should the husband or society deviate from the Divine code of living.

There is only one rule to determine the limits of what must be guarded. She has to guard that “which God has ordained to be guarded”.

We note that the Qur’ān does not put this in the imperative form. It places much stronger emphasis on it by saying that this guardianship is part of the nature of righteous women and one of their essential characteristics. This statement exposes the flimsiness of the excuses advanced by some mentally defeated Muslims advocating ways and methods that are certain to lead to the collapse of the family only because these are practised in other communities. What must be guarded, willingly and obediently, is that which God has ordered to be guarded.

The ones who are not righteous are described here as rebellious. Their rebellion is given a physical description derived from standing on a high position to declare their mutiny. Islam does not wait for such a rebellion to take place, nor for the roles to become so confused that the family institution splits into two camps. When the situation reaches that point, it is almost impossible to sort out. The treatment must be administered before the rebellion gathers momentum. Once rebellion establishes its roots, the family home is deprived of the peace and affection necessary for the upbringing of children. The whole setup collapses and the young become the victims divided between the two parents or brought up in an atmosphere which makes the family home a fertile place for psychological, mental and physical disorders to multiply and a suitable place for perversion to establish itself.

It is, then, a very serious matter. Gradual treatment must be administered when the early signs of rebellion become apparent. In order to preserve the family and protect it from destruction, the one who is placed in charge is allowed to take some disciplinary steps that are often effective. He does not take them as retaliatory measures or to humiliate or torture his partner, but to achieve reconciliation and preserve the family in the very early stages of dispute.

As for those women from whom you have reason to fear rebellion, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them. Then, if they pay you heed, do not seek any pretext to harm them. God is indeed Most High, Great. (Verse 34)

Before we consider these measures and how they progress from one stage to another, we need to remember what we have already said about the honour God gives to both men and women, giving women their rights for which they are qualified by being human. We should also remember that a Muslim woman retains her independent civil status. The fact that the man is placed in charge of the family does not deprive the woman of her right to choose her partner and to administer her personal and financial affairs. This, as also the great importance Islam attaches to the family, helps us to understand clearly why these disciplinary measures have been allowed and the nature of their application.

They are indeed pre-emptive measures aimed at achieving an early reconciliation when rebellion is feared. There is no question of trying to aggravate the situation or increase hatred. There is no battle between the man and the woman. These measures are not aimed at knocking the woman on the head when she begins to rebel and confining her again to her prison cell. No such thoughts are ever condoned by Islam.

They might have crept into the traditions of certain societies at certain stages. Such measures, however, are an indication that mankind, not merely one sex, have sunk to a very low depth. In Islam the situation is widely different in form, substance and aim.

“As for those women from whom you have reason to fear rebellion, admonish them first.” (Verse 34) Admonition, then, is the first stage. It is a responsibility of the one who is in charge of the family to admonish against untoward tendencies. Such admonition is required in a variety of situations: “Believers, ward off from yourselves and your families that fire [of the hereafter] whose fuel is human beings and stones.” (66: 6) In this particular instance, admonition has a definite aim, which is to treat the symptoms of rebellion before it develops and takes root.

In some cases, admonition may not bring about the desired results. This is possibly because of strongly held views, uncontrolled reactions, too much consciousness of one’s beauty, wealth, family position or the like. Any of these reasons may make a wife forget that she is a partner in an institution, not an adversary in a contest. At this stage the second measure is employed, which is in effect a gesture of dignity, stressing that everything in which a certain woman takes pride, such as beauty or wealth, to stress her superiority does not count for much with him: “Then leave them alone in bed.” (Verse 34)

It is in bed that a woman’s temptation is most effective. A rebellious, self- conscious woman exercises her true power. When a man is able to overcome this temptation, he deprives the woman of her most effective weapon. In the majority of cases, a woman becomes more ready to give way when the man demonstrates a good measure of will-power in the most difficult of situations. There are, however, certain rules that apply as to how this measure is taken. It is confined to the room where the couple is alone. It should not be taken in front of the children, this so that they are not adversely affected by it. Nor can it be exercised in front of strangers, because it becomes very humiliating for the woman who may, consequently, be hardened in her rebellion. This is a measure which aims at dealing with rebellion, and does not aim to humiliate the wife or to bring about a bad influence on the children.

Nevertheless, this measure may not be effective in certain cases. Are we, then, to leave the family institution to collapse? There is another measure, admittedly more severe, but it may protect the family: “Then beat them.” (Verse 34)

When we remember the aim behind all these measures, we realise that this beating is not a form of torture motivated by seeking revenge or humiliating an opponent.

Nor is it aimed at forcing the wife to accept life under all unsatisfactory conditions. It is rather a disciplinary measure akin to the punishment a father or a teacher may impose on wayward children. Needless to say, there is no question of any of these measures being resorted to in the case of a healthy relationship between a man and his wife. They are preventive measures taken in an unhealthy situation in order to protect the family against collapse.

When neither admonition nor banishment from one’s bed is effective, the situation may need a different type of remedy. Practical and psychological indications suggest that in certain situations this measure may be the appropriate one to remedy a certain perversion and to bring about satisfaction. Even when such a pathological perversion exists, a woman may not sufficiently feel the man’s strength for her to accept his authority within the family, at least not unless he overcomes her physically. This is by no means applicable to all women. What we are saying is that such women do exist and that Islam considers this measure a last resort used necessarily to safeguard the family. We have to remember here that these measures are stipulated by the Creator, who knows His creation. No counter argument is valid against what the One who knows all and is aware of all things says. Indeed to stand against what God legislates may lead to a rejection of the faith altogether. What we have to understand is that God has laid down these measures within a context that describes, in absolute clarity, their nature and aim and the intention behind them.

Hence, mistaken concepts developing in periods of ignorance cannot be ascribed to Islam. In such periods, a man may become a jailer and a woman a slave under the pretext of following religious teachings. It may also happen that the man and the woman may exchange roles or that both of them are transformed into a third sex which is midway between man and woman claiming that this is the result of a new understanding of religious teachings. All such situations are not difficult to distinguish from the true sense and proper guidance of Islam.

These disciplinary measures have been approved of in order to deal with early signs of rebellion and before attitudes are hardened. At the same time, they are accompanied by stern warnings against misuse.

The practical example given by the Prophet in his treatment of his own family and his verbal teachings and directives serve as a restraint against going to excess in either direction. The Prophet answers Mu`āwiyah ibn Ĥaydah, who asked him what rights a wife may claim against her husband, by saying: “To provide her with food when you eat, and with clothes when you dress. You are not allowed to slap her on her face, insult her or banish her from your bed anywhere except at home.” (Related by al-Tirmidhī, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah.)

The Prophet is reported to have given this general directive: “Do not beat up the women servants of God.” `Umar later went to the Prophet and said that many women had become rebellious. The Prophet then allowed that they be beaten. Many women then came to the Prophet with complaints against their husbands. The Prophet addressed his Companions saying: “Many women have called at Muĥammad’s home complaining against their husbands. Certainly these men are not the best among you.” (Related by Abū Dāwūd, al- Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah.)

The Prophet portrays this horrid picture of a man who beats up his wife: “Do not beat your wife like you beat your camel, for you will he flogging her early in the day and taking her to bed at night.” He also says: “The best among you are those who are best to their family, and I am the best of you to my family.” (Related by al-Tirmidhī and al- Ţabarānī.)

Taken in their proper context, these reports and directives give us a good idea of the conflict that existed in the early days of Islam between old habits inherited from the days of ignorance and Islamic directives. The same sort of conflict also took place in all other spheres before the new Islamic order managed finally to impress its values on human conscience.

God has, however, defined a limit when such measures must stop. Once the objective is reached with any one of these measures, then recourse to them is over:

“Then, if they pay you heed, do not seek any pretext to harm them. God is indeed Most High, Great.” (Verse 34)

The aim is, thus, stated clearly: it is obedience based on positive response, not forced obedience. This latter type of obedience is not suited to the establishment of a healthy family. Moreover, the Qur’ānic verse states clearly that to continue to resort to any of these measures after the goal of obedience is achieved takes the husband beyond his allowed limits: “Do not seek any pretext to harm them.” (Verse 34) This prohibition is followed by a reminder of the greatness of God so that people submit to His directives and repress any feeling of might or arrogance which they may entertain. This fits with the Qur’ānic method of combining temptation with warning:

“God is indeed Most High, Great.”

All the measures so discussed apply in a situation where rebellion has not yet taken place. These measures are meant to deal with its early signs. When rebellion is brought out into the open, these measures are useless. At that stage there is a war between two hostile parties, each of them going out to smash the other. Similarly, these measures should not be used if it is felt that they will be ineffective or even counterproductive. In all such situations, Islam recommends a different process of saving this great institution, the family, from collapse: “If you have reason to fear that a breach may occur between a (married) couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people. If they both want to set things aright, God will bring about their reconciliation. God is indeed All-Knowing, Aware of all things.” (Verse 35)

The Islamic method, then, does not favour an early split when signs of rebellion and hostility begin to appear. Nor does it approve that this institution be left to collapse over the heads of its other members who may be caught in a situation over which they have no control. This institution is very dear to Islam because it supplies the society with its new members whom it needs for its continued development and progress. Islam recommends that this last measure be resorted to when a breach is feared, not after it takes place. An arbiter from each of the two families of the husband and the wife meet in a friendly atmosphere, away from the influences which have caused the relationship between the husband and the wife to be strained and free from all the complications which overshadow the constructive elements in the life of the family. These arbiters must be keen to protect the reputation of both families. They care for the welfare of the children. Neither of them may entertain thoughts of forcing a submission by the other party. They must try to achieve what is best for the husband, the wife and their children.

They must also keep the family secrets because they belong to the two immediately concerned families. Neither of them has an interest in publicising these secrets. Indeed, it is in their interest to keep them secret, unknown to other people.

The arbiters meet in order to try to achieve reconciliation. If the man and his wife truly desire such a reconciliation, but are only prevented from doing so by strong feelings of anger, then a serious effort by the arbiters will he successful, with God’s help: “If they both want to set things aright, God will bring about their reconciliation.” (Verse 35) Their own desire to bring about reconciliation is endorsed by God, who responds favourably to their serious wish. This is the relationship between people’s efforts and God’s will. It is indeed by God’s will that events take place in people’s lives. People, however, are free to try and exert efforts. The end result is decided by God on the basis of His knowledge of people’s inner secrets and His awareness of what is best for them: “God is indeed All-Knowing, Aware of all things.” (Verse 35)

Having studied this passage, we have now a good idea of the seriousness with which Islam views the relationship between man and woman and the institution of the family and the social ties that are established through the family. We can see how Islam has taken care to organise this highly important aspect of human life in order to elevate mankind to the high standard achievable only by the implementation of Divine guidance. That is indeed the only true and right guidance.