The Marginalization of Women in the Qur’an

Introduction

As a former Muslim, I have several critiques of the Qur’an even though I still appreciate several spiritual gems throughout it. One of my critiques is how the Islamic holy book heavily centers men, referring to them explicitly by their first names and centering their narratives. It is understood among Muslims that the Qur’an features narratives of many prophets, all of them male, to make them relatable to the human beings that God seeks to guide. Their stories are meant to communicate to the readers that you find the ultimate benefit, peace, guidance and salvation through trusting in and submitting to God, in good times and bad, in life, in death and even after death. 

The Qur’an mentions women, too, and undeniably sets honorable examples of women to be praised. For example, the wife of the oppressive Pharaoh is explicitly favored by God for her choosing to have faith in God and submitting to God rather than submitting to her husband who goes against God. With the pharaoh being an abusive person, she already faced consequences of abuse and still openly submitted to God over pharaoh. In addition, she had opportunities to live in luxury through the pharoah’s wealth if she had submitted to him, but she still chose to be on the side of justice over that privilege. And then the Queen of Sheba, Bilqees, is recognized as an exemplary leader. She is praised for accepting the prophet Solomon’s invitation to Islam, which would promote peace over her queendom and his kingdom. While recognizing the Qur’an’s honoring of Bilqees for accepting Islam and therefore submitting to God I do still want to acknowledge that this story could be seen as problematic; had the Bilqees not accepted Islam and had different religious beliefs, Solomon’s army may have potentially invaded her people. But considering the Qur’an’s message in the context of this specific story, let’s assume that accepting Islam was the way of the utmost truth and justice and the source of literal submission to God, the ultimate source of morality and ethics. Hajar, or Hagar, is another significant female archetype in the Qur’an and is praised for her relentless piety. Left alone with her infant son in a deserted area by her husband, prophet Abraham, upon him receiving God’s instructions, Hagar covered great distances on foot to find water for her son, until God rewarded her with a spring of water. She is recognized for keeping faith that God would provide despite how dire the circumstances were and was driven to take action aligned with that faith, illustrating that she was at the end rewarded. Mary is celebrated for her faith in God as she endured outcasting in society from being slut shamed, continuing to defend her virtue, and also for having faith in God in her difficult experience of childbirth. If you aren’t familiar with this story in the Islamic context, Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus; she conceived him despite being a virgin. 

While I recognize these positively coded representations of women, there are still deep flaws that position women as second-class citizens to men I observe throughout the Qur’an and including in the very structures of how these stories are worded. I see both implicit and explicit ways for this. 

Women (except for Mary) are never mentioned by name.

While men are explicitly mentioned by name in the Qur’an, every godly-exemplary women (except for one woman in particular, again, Mary) mentioned in the Qur’an are mentioned either by their title and/or by their association to someone else, usually to a man. The only woman who is mentioned by name in the Qur’an is Mary, who has an entire surah (chapter) dedicated to her. 

There is no doubt that patriarchy influences this. Some explanations for this from Muslims state that these differences in direct versus indirect recognition based on gender are to reflect the patriarchal culture in which Islam was revealed, but not necessarily to promote it. They say that it was simply a popular way that people identified women in the culture as well. The idea that difference between direct and indirect reference is not a big deal is often emphasized by Muslims through stating how the Qur’an explicitly states that men and women are equal in value to God’s perception (4:124, 16:67, 33:35) and that it is not a matter of positioning men as more important or more worthy of recognition to women. However, I disagree– especially when looking at the Qur’an entirely. 

Even if not always explicitly, implicit messages are being conveyed when men are referred to in their single human existence while women are recognized based on their association to men. I do have explicit examples as well that perpetuate sexism against women while upholding patriarchal ideals throughout the Qur’an, which I can get to later. 

All of the prophets are men in traditional scholarship, despite women’s contributions and leadership

It is worth considering that in Islam, or at least in traditional and conservative interpretations of Islam, all of God’s prophets are men and that there are no prophets that are women. Some of the more progressive interpretations believe that Mary may have been a prophet too, especially with her having an entire surah dedicated to her. Not only is the title of the surah literally named “Mary” but Mary’s name is mentioned multiple times throughout it. Arguably, the main thing separating her from the other male prophets is that she is a woman. So then why wouldn’t she be a prophet?

Let’s assume that the first, more traditional understanding is correct in Islam where all of the prophets are men and that Mary is not a prophet since she is differentiated by her being a woman. Most Muslims, including progressive Muslims and feminist Muslims in conjunction with more conservative ones, will reject that this character of the Qur’an (Mary not being a prophet) is sexist. After all, the stories of the prophets, despite all of the prophets being men, are meant to serve as relatable examples for both men and women. There are lessons of piety and character growth that are applicable to all Muslims, regardless of gender. 

I don’t disagree that women can find lessons through the stories of men. This isn’t just exclusive to the Qur’an or any other religious texts– you see the narratives of men dominating popular literature that women and men enjoy alike. However, relatable representation is important. And recognition is important. Being labeled a prophet and messenger of God isn’t just an empty title– it is a means of high honor and high recognition. By awarding these titles to only men who have contributed significantly to spreading the message of God but not to women who have contributed just as if not more significantly to spreading the message of God, there is a devaluation that is taking place. There is an inevitable centering of men and decentering of women. We know how frustrating this can be in modern life experiences, when women are appreciated for their efforts in the workplace, in community involvement, at home– but are not recognized as explicitly and as obviously as men are. Throughout history, you see men taking credit for women’s discoveries, ideas and inventions; women are expected to contribute mentally, physically, spiritually– but are expected to be discreet about it so that men can have the honors of recognition. Hajar was the one who expended herself as she searched for water and fought off her fear, yet Abraham’s prophethood is the only one worth validating. Asiya faced consequences that put her safety and life at risk to stand up for justice in the cause of God and she helped Moses as he carried out a similar mission, yet she is not awarded neither direct recognition by name nor prophethood or something of equal title. It’s hard not to see this common theme of women being sidelined so that the recognition of men is centered. As goes often in modern society, women’s labor is devalued. What is considered “feminine” is often deemed less important. In the Qur’an, the same is taking place in implicit and even contradictory ways. On one hand, the Qur’an makes it clear that women and men are responsible for their individual choices, sins and good deeds in their submission to God. On the other, importance and recognition are not given in equal or even equitable ways. 

Different but equal

When the Qur’an is referred to as a holy book that is revered as a timeless guide to life and to existing, and the main characters in it are overwhelmingly men, what happens is that men are inevitably being centered, while women are being othered. Even if not fully erased, and even though their contributions are still being recognized, women are still, again, being recognized on the sidelines to men or behind men. Even if this doesn’t seem inherently malicious, and many times men and even other women will  be unintentional in sidelining or glossing over women in religion and beyond, the harmful effects on women still persist. This is because again at the root, the erasure and sideling are inherently dehumanizing and hierarchical. At the root, women and their work are not being taken as seriously as men’s. It’s as if women’s contributions, even though explicitly celebrated, come as secondary to that of the centered men. With the exception of the story of Mary, men are the primary characters, and the women who help them are the secondary ones. 

Ultimately, men’s narratives are still being centered even in women’s experiences. Men are still being centered when it comes to connecting to God.

I’m not entirely surprised when I see how women are excluded in religious spaces like mosques and halaqas. I want to be fair and also acknowledge that there are hadith and Islamic history that urge the inclusion of Muslim women; for example, there is a Hadith where the prophet Muhummad forbids men from preventing Muslim women from going to the mosque. When I went to Islamic Sunday school as a kid, many women held leadership positions. I remember a woman being president of the Islamic Sunday School, being a leader over other men and women. In addition, many of the teachers were women. When I was part of the Muslim Students Association in college, it was common for women to hold leadership positions on the MSA board, including the title of president. In other words, leadership of Muslim women in Islamic spaces is allowed and commonplace in many ways. Although there are many problematic, sexist hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, which is popularly considered to be authentic narrations of the prophet Muhummad, Aisha, one of the prophet’s wives who outlived him, is considered to be one of the greatest teachers of Islam and is believed to have narrated many Hadith in and outside of Sahih al-Bukhari, good and bad. 

With all of the positive regards of women’s leadership being noted in traditional and modern or newer Muslim practices and in-between, the reason I’m still not surprised at the exclusion and disregard of women in religious spaces is because of the ambiguity of the Qur’an when it comes to gender equality, caused by the direct versus indirect descriptions of men and women respectively and in the double standards of recognition. Recently on TikTok during this past Ramadan, a holy month in Islam when the Qur’an is believed to have been revealed and Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset and deepen their focus on connecting to God and honing their character, I saw a Muslim woman talking about an experience where she was denied iftar (food for breaking fast) when she went to the mosque, being told that the iftar there is only for men. I’ve seen how women are discriminated against in the physical structuring of mosques, where there are large spaces for men but small confinements for women. For this, there will often be the argument that men are required to attend the mosque while women are not required to; and even if that is the case, the mosque, a communal space, should be welcoming and inclusive for all. At the very least, it shouldn’t be uninviting for a specific group of people. Women are also barred by certain imams from even being heard; they are shunned for attending burials, let alone speaking special words for their loved ones who are recently deceased. 

A significant reason for the exclusion of women in religious spaces comes from the idea that women are “fitna”, or a trial for men where they are seen as sexual enticements for simply existing. Therefore, many misogynistic Muslim men and women will justify discouraging and even shaming women from being seen and heard, let alone from attending the mosque. Despite the hadith prohibiting Muslim men from preventing Muslim women from going to the mosque, there is also another hadith that states it is best for women to stay at home and pray in the innermost corner of their house rather than going to the mosque. In the Qur’an, it does not call for the exclusion of Muslim women from going to the mosque. However, in combination with the structuring and secondary referrals of women in the Qur’an to the exclusionary hadith, men are again, centered in religion and worship. 

Many Muslims will say that this exclusion is cultural, not at all based in Islam as a religion, and I appreciate this and recognize this. In addition to women’s leadership I recognized earlier from what I’ve seen in my own personal life, women speakers are popularly allowed and welcomed as speakers on stages, virtually and in person, with large audiences. Spaces for women have been intentionally made very large and women’s desire for privacy from men has been considered, making it comfortable and inviting for women to attend prayers and to find peace in the houses of God. And despite the exclusion of women in mosques, I would be dishonest and ignorant if I did not mention how several mosques have been making spacious and beautiful praying rooms for women, challenging the cultural exclusion from others. 

But how much can we extract culture from religion? How do we separate, objectively, patriarchy being embedded in the Qur’an to promote it versus the Qur’an being revealed in a vessel of a patriarchal society to challenge it? 

At the end of the day, the most significant text for Islam, the Qur’an, is still patriarchal in structure. It is up to the individual reader whether they have socially conscious intentions in interpreting what God meant to say and why. The Qur’an still centers men and their narratives, despite how Muslims interpret the heart of it, or how they interpret God, using the Qur’an as a vessel. Perhaps the Qur’an is supposed to serve as an inspiration, as a catalyst, to have generations after generations of Muslims uncover deeper levels of social consciousness by reflecting an imperfect society being challenged. Maybe instead of having Muslims be complacent with the indirect referencing and sidelining of women, the Qur’an greatly recognized women for believers to progress in their recognition of women, resulting in the Golden Age of Islam where there various instances of women’s leadership in addition to modern women leadership, despite the backwards misogyny practiced by staunch conservatives that claim that women taking up space is unIslamic. 

Even if more progressive interpretations do recognize Mary as a prophet, she is still the only example who is mentioned by name. And the significance of her recognition quickly goes to focus on the narrative of Jesus; also important to mention is that in the beginning of the Surah, the narrative of Zachariah is centered where he is distressed about not being able to have an heir to continue God’s message. And she is revered as a vessel for bringing the heir into this world– Jesus, a man. This is similar to how whenever other female or “feminine” archetypes are mentioned in the Qur’an, their purpose ties to helping men accomplish missions. While men are recognized in their individual goals and missions for the purpose of promoting God and God’s message, women are primarily recognized for helping men spread God’s message. As stated earlier, men are positioned as the primary characters while women are always the secondary. Men are always the main leaders and awarded prophethood and messengership, and women are always there to help them advance their missions.

On one hand, this can be undoubtedly appreciated from a feminist perspective. As highlighted throughout this amazing analysis by Celeste Ibrahim that I found on YouTube a few years ago when I was really struggling to hang onto my Muslim faith, archetypes of women are essential to assist the male or man prophets; as pointed out in the comments section by viewers, famously accomplished and popularly honored men have women behind them to be significantly credited in making their individual success possible.  Of course, I don’t say this to discredit men’s roles and contributions, but rather to point out how invisible or underappreciated women’s roles and efforts become in the centering of men– which is evident through the language and structure of the Qur’an which I am critiquing here in the first place. It doesn’t have to be an either or scenario of who gets to be appreciated, man versus woman. It’s about being equitable where everyone is recognized with due respect, not only men. Which brings me to the other hand: women’s labor, knowledge and wisdom are considered secondary and pushed to the side. And these women revered in the Qur’an are again acknowledged by association to the men, the lack of direct acknowledgement making them easily invisible and forgotten. This isn’t unlike observations made in patriarchal societies from ancient to modern history. Not only are supporting women’s contributions often downplayed or considered as afterthoughts, they are often forgotten completely; or if they are not afterthoughts or forgotten, men very often take credit for the women’s labor and work as their own. 

I’ve seen Muslims use the concept of “equal but different” to justify the confinement of women and men in gender roles as a form of empowerment, saying that just because these two genders are recognized differently doesn’t take away from their equality. Equity is often assumed in differential recognition of the genders– at least explicitly. But in practice, there are also implicit and explicit ways that contradict this sense of equality on the grounds of equity, where women are infantilized and painted as subservient to men. 

From what I observe and personally believe, this concept of “equal but different”, while being true in addition to “equal and also same” in other instances, is often used as justification of placing women in a subservient position to men who are placed in a superior position. The Qur’an and popular analysis of it is not exempt from this. 

While again women and men are recognized as equal and God states in the Qur’an that each human being regardless of gender will be judged equitably based on their actions, it is still men whose good actions and competence are recognized with enough value for them to be rewarded the status of prophets and messengers. And it is women whose contributions are not recognized with the same value– not only for them to not be recognized as prophets and messengers, but also for them to not even be recognized by name in the first place. 

Ultimately, there is an obvious stubbornness to maintain a hierarchy of man above woman when it comes to status of gender and gender-based labor. Even if women are contributing as much if not more labor than that of men, she is still barred from being given significance beyond a helper to a man. Not only is this a display of the devaluation of “feminine” labor and ultimately of women, but it is also patriarchal in nature to force a hierarchy of recognition that never lets women receive a title of higher status over a man, as if the higher status titles of “prophet” and “messenger” are only reserved for men.

I have no doubt that again, the centering of men through direct acknowledgement in the Qur’an positioned against the indirect acknowledgement of women in the Qur’an results in women being forgotten and marginalized, considered less significant. I very often see arguments that patriarchy is the cause of this, not Islam with the subjective understanding that Islam is not inherently patriarchal– and to be fair, Qur’an and Hadith in many ways do uphold the message that every single person, no matter their gender, will be held accountable for their own individual actions, good or bad and will not bear the burden of another’s sinful actions. At the same time, I cannot confidently argue that women’s roles and contributions are given as much value and weight when in comparison to men’s– at least based on how the Qur’an and Hadith recognize them. Despite both men and women’s efforts being recognized, many of those men are explicitly given the honored title of a prophet. And while the prophet Muhummad’s wives are given the title of the Mothers of the Believers, they are still expected to show their submission to God through their submission to Muhummad as their husband. The Qur’an explicitly validates and enables Muhummad to enjoy sexual and emotional benefits of marriage and even concubinage ownership of women (which is a whole problematic topic in and of itself) without consideration of how it disrespects and neglects his wives. In fact, according to the Qur’an, God allows him to spend as much time and give as much to whichever wives he prefers, even if it’s not just, since he is excused from it and gifted this privilege by God. And his wives are chastised and coerced into being okay with this and not asking for a divorce. They are basically told that by disobeying and divorcing Muhummad, they are choosing the “wordly” life instead of choosing God, which requires their submission to Muhummad. The Surah literally tells them that they either choose Allah and His messenger (Muhummad) or they don’t. His wives are also given extra instructions in comparison to other Muslim women, where they are required to seclude themselves to extra degrees since they are the prophet’s wives; they are tasked with this responsibility so that supposedly, they don’t interrupt Muhummad’s mission by being seductive to other men who may desire them sexually. So while Muhummad has the freedom to pursue his ambitions inside and outside of the home and garner honor because of his connection and chosenness of God, his wives are only recognized in recognition to a man they share in an unhappy, unequal, unjust  marriage where they must abide by double standards. In these multiple instances again, these women are recognized by God for being “good women” to the extent to which they are submissive wives to their shared husband who enjoys the status of a prophet and messenger while invalidating their turmoils while simultaneously infantilizing them. We again see obvious instances of where women are sidelined and suppressed to center the honor of a man they are expected to serve and position themselves inferiorly to. It’s also worth noting that in this particular example, Muhummad’s wives are chastised for standing up for themselves in this world for desiring loyalty, fairness and sexual and emotional intimacy and autonomy– yet Muhummad is not chastised for indulging in his own worldly pleasures where he is given the freedom to have sexual relations as he pleases while enjoying his own wealth. In other words, while Muhummad is given a green light for enjoying several women unfairly and without consequence, these women suffer at the expense of their autonomy. His wives are taught that they are going against God by standing up for themselves to undeniable unfair treatment, and that they must deal with it in order to be in the good graces of God. Muhummad in his freedom not only gets status and honor as the title of prophet and messenger, but he gets to enjoy worldly pleasures and is promised to pleasure and blessings in the afterlife. His wives are given the status of Mothers of the Believes as they are promised good in the afterlife as rewards for being complacent with neglectful and even abusive treatment in the current worldly life. Even as the title of “Mothers of the Believers” is seemingly honorable, it is still in the context of patriarchy that objectifies women as property for male ownership. Yes, these women are being honored– but as a reward for their submission and subservience to a man. This is a classic example of benevolent patriarchy, where sexism and misogyny are more subtle: men are honored as natural born leaders and competent caretakers who serve women by providing for them, protecting for them and being leaders for them and taking care of their affairs. Benevolent patriarchy presents the infantilization of women and downplaying their competence, intellect and autonomy as honoring women, which is not unpopular in various interpretations of religion, whether it’s Islam or other religions. 

It’s interesting to observe that religious conservatives and traditionalists are stubborn in affirming that men and women are vastly different in nature– very often used by them as grounds to justify benevolent patriarchy where men ultimately have control over women because of the idea that it’s good for the women– while they simultaneously assert that centering male narratives are sufficient enough for women’s spiritual connection to God. If women and men are so different that they have to cater their self expression to boxes of what are “feminine” and “masculine” to ensure that they are “woman enough” or “man enough” respectively according to these people, then how is it that a man, who is supposedly so significantly different from a woman, able to relate to both men and women equally when serving as epitomes of connecting to God?

I do agree that women and men on the basis of gender do have notable differences, at the very least how they are experienced and stereotyped in society– they are not exactly the same. And regarding the basis of sex, male and female biology on the basis of sex are not the same exactly and have notable differences. I am not arguing that women and men have to be perceived exactly the same in order to be valued or in order to be perceived as equal in value, humanity and autonomy. What I am saying is that a hierarchy should not be created in justification of whatever differences there are, be it based on sex or gender. The traits of autonomy, leadership, competence, piety, personhood and intellect should not be reserved for men in a way that positions them at the top of a hierarchy while women are positioned at the bottom. Unfortunately, this hierarchy and the idea that it is not sexist under the lens of benevolent patriarchy persists as people stay ignorant to or avoid the sexist nature of stripping women of their humanity and potential, while assuming that men are better equipped and dominant over women in being and in performance when it comes to matters of spirituality self actualization. Regardless of differences and similarities associated with sex and gender identities, there must be equitable and equal archetypal recognition for the message of equality and its promotion take effect on systemic levels. Only using male or man archetypes as the standard for women to aspire to sends the message that men are more noteworthy in their labor and contributions and that women are deficient in comparison. It disregards not only relatable and validating examples for women to connect to God through when female or woman archetypes are nonexistent or limited, but it also eliminates the idea that women have character examples for men to learn from and exhibit. So again, to reiterate my point– the idea isn’t that women must be given prophethood and messenger status or the equivalent because women need to be more like men because women are not good enough on their own. The point is that titles of these status should not be exclusive to men, and that women in their own rights are worthy and deserving of just as much if not more recognition where appropriate. The point is that women deserve recognition and visibility in the first place, and the idea that women don’t need to be recognized to be valued plays into benevolent sexism that assumes a hierarchy does not consider status– when the very nature of a hierarchy is based on status. 

And how is that especially so when the women of that already existing patriarchal society prior to and during Islam being introduced are already used to being marginalized, excluded and oppressed? Isn’t it necessary that female or “feminine” archetypes are introduced so that women can relate in their striving for God– even moreso given their marginalization? Shouldn’t there be explicit archetypes where women are taught to object to patriarchy, internalized misogyny and societal conditionings teaching them to center men?  Interestingly enough, it’s the privileged group in these stories– the men– who are acknowledged primarily and deeply in their struggles and in their submission to God and who are taken for granted as being leaders. 

Depending on the stories, the struggles these men experience where they are marginalized are valid. Men’s struggles are valid, generally speaking, where they are the actual victims. But when men in this society are the oppressors of women, why is it that they are exclusively instructed on how to deal with women, where women are not instructed on how to protect and empower themselves? Why is it that men are not called out for creating and maintaining the gender-based systemic oppression over women, and instead encouraged to maintain these systems including ownership of women through marriage and slavery, but are instead given instructions on maintaining them with some ethical guidelines and considerations? Why is it that they are instructed on how to keep so-called rebellious wives and slaves in control in Surah an-Nisa, but women are not given guidelines on how to seek refuge and safety from abusive husbands and masters? And why is it that men’s authority over women while being affirmed is not explicitly challenged and rebuked?

Yes, it’s true that instructions for justice from a divine source could be a necessary thing to instruct oppressors to quit their evil. While men are instructed to be kind and just towards women in surah An-Nisa, or the chapter of the Women, they are simultaneously assumed to be guardians of women that they are entitled to discipline in the same surah. In previous situations where men were oppressed by other men, such as Moses being oppressed by pharaoh, Joseph being wronged by his brothers, etc, these male/man prophets are centered in the narratives. But when it comes to women being oppressed by men, including by their abusive husbands, it is the men who are given instructions on connecting to God and empowering themselves, and being entrusted with honoring women. It is men who are given mercy and compassion for their sexual desires and ego-based controlling desires, where even though they are tasked with taking care of women from a place of benevolence, are given privileges of ownership over women. For example, men are allowed to divorce women easily while women have to go through a longer process to get a divorce, and men are allowed to own women as slaves that they can have sexual intercourse with, this not being considered a sin. Men are granted entitlement to women’s bodies– both of their wives and their slaves– through both implicit and explicit ownership. The concepts of women’s safety, of consent, of women’s pleasure and sexual needs, are not addressed in the same discussion of acknowledging male sexual needs. So as we can see, not only are men centered and coddled despite their subjugation of women, their subjugation is allowed as long as they discontinue gatekeeping certain rights– with these rights continuing to not threaten the ultimate ownership a man has over women through the contract of marriage or by concubinage. 

Women’s struggles matter. Women’s empowerment outside of her association to a man matters. What I cannot help but notice is that despite women being the oppressed group and men being the privileged group in the culture where the Qur’an was revealed, it is still male or “masculine” narratives that are put at the forefront. 

And to paint a more specific, vivid picture– not only did men have multiple wives which they had a dominant position over in society, but they also were allowed to have unlimited concubines– many of whom were reduced to being sexual commodities for male pleasure. I do also recognize that in most analyses of the Qur’an, especially the more progressive ones, the allowing of four wives is generally discouraged and was put forth so that widowed women had a means of acquiring wealth and security for survival through the means of marriage. While I do appreciate this interpretation and agree that most Muslim men in modern times who practice polygyny completely ignore the explicitly outlined requirements where they are required to treat all wives fairly and fulfill their rights, and that because it’s very unlikely for them to do so which means they shouldn’t practice polygyny at all, it is not lost on me that there wasn’t more done to challenge the very systems of patriarchy on a larger scale. It’s noteworthy that still, men are being centered and instructed to treat women well, which is great– but women are not being given instruction or divine miracles to gain autonomy and an upper hand over their oppressors. While I recognize that slavery of various kinds and patriarchy were embedded into the culture prior to Islam’s introduction and that Islam set forth many rules to honor women, and while I acknowledge that Islam also encouraged freeing slaves, I cannot deny the ways in which the Qur’an still allowed, protected and even promoted confining women’s honor in the confines of patriarchy. The Qur’an, while commanding men to treat their wives justly and with kindness, simultaneously tells them that they are also welcome to have sex with those that their “right hand possesses.” In another example besides the allowing of sexual slavery, women are valued as testimony witnesses; at the same time, the Qur’an prescribes that two women must give the same testimony while it is enough for one man to give a testimony. I’ve heard of different explanations where people insist that the reason for this is not sexist, while following to give sexist explanations that undermine a woman’s intellect in comparison to a man’s under the premise of biology. Other explanations claim that there is a specific context being referred to in that surah, but that reason is still not good enough when there aren’t any other contextual examples given to prove that this isn’t gender-based bias where men’s intellect is positioned over women’s. Or perhaps, there is an implication of character via truthfulness where it’s assumed that men have more integrity than women. 

And from a video by Shabir Ally from his Let the Qur’an Speak series on YouTube, I just recently learned that in the Qur’an, the same word used to refer to a woman’s husband is the same word used to refer to a master, chief, owner, lord– further implying existential superiority and ownership over women. From my understanding, baal isn’t the only word used to refer to a woman’s husband– the Arabic word, zawj which means spouse is used. However, the fact that baal is used in the first place shows the power and control, let alone ownership, that a husband is entitled to over his wife according to the Qur’an. In the same video from Shabir Ally, he discusses how even though wives were considered free women in comparison to slave women, they were still lower in status and in autonomy in comparison to men. Even though free women had more rights in being a wife compared to slave women, they still had restricted freedom. Again, we see how even when equality is explicitly stated or alluded to among women and men, implicitly we still see hierarchies of autonomy where men still have ownership over women, even if they are labeled as “free” women. 

So if the Qur’an is a holy book that is 100% from an ethically perfect, morally perfect, omniscient source– that source being God– then how are there so many instances of sexism that objectively do not do women justice? Where women are still at the mercy of men, and where men are still being centered in narratives of connecting with God? Where as patriarchal, misogynistic oppressors, men are still being the ones given grace and mercy via the means of being entitled to ownership including sexual control over women? And where a woman’s intellect and competency in personhood are challenged, such as where women’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s?

It doesn’t make sense. As I discussed earlier, I’m not at all surprised by the cultural manifestations of excluding women and undermining their leadership in religious spaces. The implicit messaging from this notion of “equal, but different” through the lens of patriarchy reduces women to objects existing for male service, consumption and control. This manifests in common mosque cultures where women are chastised for being perceived by men, for causing ‘fitna’– or causing trials for them– that could lead them into sin by lusting after her. This justification for women causing fitna just by existing and from simply being perceived by men for existing is a common thing used to make the mosque an unwelcoming place for women. Even with the blunt acknowledgment that women are equal through clear statements, the Qur’an still fails to recognize women’s presence and contributions as equal. This further perpetuates the idea that women are not needed in the mosque, not only to assure the prevention of fitna but also because them taking up space, being an integral part of the community, serving as leaders is neither necessary nor beneficial. 

It’s interesting how many assert that women are “equal, but different” to men, but the things that make them different in assigned gender roles happen to be things that subjugate women while positioning men above them and affirm that they are intellectually inferior to men. For example, it is assumed that men are innately better leaders than women and that women are incompetent and are better as followers. This isn’t exclusive to patriarchal interpretations of Islam– you see this in other religious and non-religious spaces. Not only is this untrue, as there are various examples of excellent woman leaders throughout history and in modern day, but this ultimately ignores the ways in which men’s leadership were only made possible on either the support or exploitation of women. Not to mention, there have been countless moral and ethical failures in nations run by men, and men have started nearly all of the wars throughout history. I’m not saying that men aren’t capable of being good leaders or that there haven’t ever been any good male leaders, but I am calling out the double standard where men are accorded the innate status of being more competent in leadership and in power over women on the virtue of intellect and morality. 

How are women recognized for their faith in God and in their contribution to spreading God’s message to others, often facing great hardships in doing so, but not granted the status of a prophet when men are honored with the same? In other words, why does a man’s contributions in the cause for God warrant him the status of a prophet to be emulated for men and women? And what else must we consider when we think about how this emulation of prophets– who are men– contains bounds for women, since conservative and traditionalist interpreters are staunch on gender roles? How much are Muslim women allowed to relate to these male prophets then in the first place? On top of that, how do we reconcile the reinforcement of hierarchies based on patriarchy with gender equality, equity and autonomy?

Even while promoting instances of gender equity, the Qur’an is still objectively patriarchal 

In my analyses, opinion and belief, while promoting gender equality and calling for equity to an extent, the Qur’an is still largely patriarchal. By decentering women’s narratives, it’s no wonder that there is so much room for interpretation and ambiguity that disadvantages, with or without context. Much of the most popularly accepted contexts coming from traditional scholars that are considered by Muslims globally to be the most legitimate on the basis of them being the most conservative uphold patriarchal and misogynistic views– or at the very best, being benevolently patriarchal. I do recognize that there are progressive interpretations with or without additional context as well that align with feminism and gender equality; however, these interpretations having the room to be subjective rather than objective, especially when objective patriarchy is present through the structural referencing of women versus men as I have described, further shows the patriarchal embeddings within the Qur’an. 

I want to also briefly mention that there are several instances through which men are instructed on how to serve as authorities over women, in addition to what I have mentioned in the previous section about slavery, particularly sexual slavery where men are entitled to have sex with female slaves, and marriage where a husband is given the title of “baal” (lord). While I appreciate the messages of equity reflected through Surah An-Nisa, or the Chapter of the Women in the Qur’an where men are instructed to be kind to women and protect and provide for them, given that they were granted with privilege that women were not in that society, I find it harmful that women are not addressed directly in their own relationships to God and with each other in their interpersonal relationships with other women. And also problematic is that women are not directly instructed or guided in how to function in their marriages as wives, too. Especially given that their autonomy was limited within the confines of sexual slavery or through marriage, under the ultimate ownership of a man, it’s further disheartening to me that women weren’t given divine assurance or empowerment of their own empowerment where they were affirmed of their own God-given right to personhood, autonomy and consent. Even though men are given instructions to be kind and just towards women either as caretakers in slave-master or wife-husband or wife-lord relationships, they are still affirmed in their entitlement to the bodies of the women in these relationships. In addition to the permissibility of sexual ownership over a woman and her body through slavery, which on its own shows the disregard of consent, there is a Qur’anic verse that tells Muslim men in 2:223 that they are allowed to enter their women like they enter their fields– comparing women to farmlands for breeding. There are tafsir, or Qur’anic interpretations with context, that oppose the bluntness of this verse. It is assumed in some of these tafsir that this verse holds the expectation that women are approached consensually. And then there is also tafsir that in addition to assuming that this verse requires consent from women as a given, that the context of this verse was to inform men that various sex positions are permissible when engaging in, again assumed consensual, sexual intercourse. While I would love to believe that this is what was meant in the Qur’an from a divine and therefore objective standpoint, and I believe that most Muslims interpret this verse with an ethically and morally conscious lens, I argue that consent is still dubious here. I say this because of both contextual reasons and because of the specific verbiage being used in the Qur’an. Also important to mention is that this comparison of women to a man’s fields is inherently objectifying is disgraceful in and of itself. This objectification further strengthens the lack of regard for consent as a consequence of the lack of reagard for a woman’s personhood, autonomy and humanity through this obvious objectification. Reading the rest of this second surah in the Qur’an, titled Surah al-Baqarah, I can see how men are urged to take care of women and to not take advantage of them in cases such as divorce. Yet again, men are still given more control and freedom over divorcing women. While men are permitted to divorce women immediately with a few months’ waiting period after, where he is entitled to take her back if he wants, women are given no such instruction and must rely on a lengthier, more complex process to attain a divorce. Again, men are recognized as the decision makers and given more freedom and authority to determine the fate of these marriages and the women they are in relation with in them despite women being the more vulnerable party here. Context wise, it is a popular topic of discussion that women didn’t have many rights or freedoms to begin with, and that even between wives who had the status of free women and female slaves who did not have that status, there was still little difference in the freedoms and autonomy that they were allowed to have. Even in Shabir Ally’s video from his Let the Qur’an Speak series, he talks about how men were given entitlement to sexual access over their wives and the slave women who the Qur’an recognizes as “their right hands possessing.” If consent is truly emphasized when it comes to sexual relationships between men and women given that the gender-based power dynamics of men over women where men dominated women, then it’s with little to no evidence. If anything especially considering these contexts of gender inequity, the power dynamics were still upheld and reinforced. Sure, it’s possible that women were granted dignity and rights in ways that were revolutionary compared to previous generations and prior to the Qur’an being revealed– but these rights are still granted in a system that allows men to gatekeep a woman’s freedom. If women were truly granted dignity in equality to men on equitable bases, then they would be recognized in equality when it comes intellect, bodily autonomy and freedom of personhood. Instead, they are still confined under a man’s guardianship and sexual whims– even if there are some restrictions on those guardianship and sexual whims. At the end of the day, the inherent ownership through being a master of a husband with similar sexual entitlement over his wife as that of a master over his slave is still there in the first place. Ownership, rights to confine and control are there in the first place even if there are rules around that ownership. Women are ultimately invalidated in their adulthood and infantilized under the authority of and expected submission to men. Again we see that women are granted rights in a system of benevolent patriarchy, where even though they are given rights, these rights are given in ways that still don’t grant them full autonomy and personhood as an individuals. These rights and senses of honor are granted in ways that still allow men ownership and control over them, particularly for women who are married. There is still an inherent infantilization of women who are expected to be dependent on their husbands and objectification where they are required to be sexually available for their husbands’ control and satisfaction. 

Even with Qur’anic revelations calling for kind treatment of them and dignity from men, women still had to rely on being passive receivers of men, who were given the instructions and authority over them. Time and time again, women are expected to look to men as leaders and examples for how to relate to God and to other people in their community– including in their interpersonal relationships with other women. Yes, there are various women scholars throughout Islamic history, and they have made undeniably significant contributions both within the prophet Muhummad’s time and after. And there are many amazing Muslim woman scholars who continue to do so. However, even when these women are leaders much of the time, they are still leaders under the instruction of men. 

There may be counterarguments asserting that women are given instruction and examples from other women through the Qur’an, even if they are not recognized as prophets or messengers, to help with connecting with God. I don’t fully disagree with that– I still see Asiya, Hagar and Bilqees and honorable examples. When it comes to the Mother of the Believers, however, I find sexism and the suppression of women’s self expression and voices being reinforced. Benevolent patriarchy is still very much intact.

The prophet Muhummad’s wives as leaders with the supposed honorable title of “Mother of the Believers” is still under the pretext that those women themselves took instruction from men. In other words, original leadership is derived from men, reflecting how men are the receivers of direct connection to God. Ultimately, women’s connection to God is facilitated by male leaders, taking for granted how intimately women connect to God while simultaneously devaluing their leadership gems guiding both men and women to God. Men’s spiritual prowess is assumed to be more competent over that of women’s, assuming men to be at the forefront of guiding humanity. When the prophet’s wives as the Mothers of the Believers are being lauded as examples and even epitomes of good Muslim women, it is undeniably being communicated that the best of Muslim women are those that are submissive and reclusive from society. These “best” of Muslim women ultimately were fear mongered into submitting to Muhummad in the context of piety, giving up not just their desires, but emotional, physical and sexual needs while he did not have to do any such thing. They were also commanded to stay in their homes so that they did not entice men, so that Muhummad could be comfortable. Even though there are interpretations and analyses claiming these verses were specifically for Muhummad’s wives and not for all other Muslim women to follow, the impacts are still harmful and are commonly used to justify women being told to shrink themselves. And besides harmful, misogynist teachings being a consequence from this verse, these verses show another example of how Muhummad’s wives were subjugated and also victim blamed and overtly sexualized. Instead of verses being revealed to warn or chastise men for desiring or having “ill intentions” towards his wives, these women are burdened with the responsibility of hiding themselves. This is reinforcing rape culture. Yes, according to other sources, Muhummad’s wives are also known to have fought in battles and other sources describe how they were vocal about their needs, desires and questions. At the same time, the extent of their expression and rights as wives being fulfilled and their overall dignity and personhood were limited by supposed divine intervention granting Muhummad special privileges that allowed him control over them. Even as these women were known to be vocal and warriors, the extent to which they were allowed to be so was still based on their submission to Muhummad as their husband, under the justification of prophethood. In other words, their freedom of self expression and autonomy only went as far as Muhummad allowed, and supposedly God, allowed. There isn’t anything wrong with a woman finding empowerment in modesty, and it is always a right of a woman to choose how to carry and present herself to the world. It becomes harmful when modesty is imposed as a means of keeping women from being seen and heard where they are not able to claim ownership over themselves and where they are required to shrink themselves because of the perverted perceptions of men where they are reduced to sexual machines just by existing. It is especially harmful when women are told to cover for the sake of the male gaze, particularly to please her husband, instead of their self preservation and self reclamation in submission to God. I recognize that the command of hijab in general from the Qur’an is interpreted to be a command from God for the sake of submitting to God, and I can appreciate that. I see and admire Muslim women and any women in general who choose to practice modesty with the intention of self-respect and rebelling against the societal conditioning of putting your value on your beauty and of centering men and chasing their validation through catering to the male gaze. I understand that the idea that women are primarily supposed to cover for men is understood widely among Muslims to be a cultural flaw, not a religious one. While I agree partially with that based on my own readings of the Qur’an that modesty/hijab is for God and not for a man, especially given that modesty and hijab are required for women regardless of marital status, the command given to the prophet’s wives seems to contradict hijab being a form of self-empowerment and individual piety as they are instructed to cover and secluded themselves for Muhummad’s comfort with no regard for their own needs and desires. I find that the positioning of Muhummad’s wives therefore as exemplary leaders considering the control and sufferings they’ve endured in being wed to him where they were subdued by patriarchy ultimately teaches women to shrink themselves and submit to their husbands at betrayals of themselves, in the name of so-called piety. It’s great that their strong personalities are captured and praised to encourage Muslim women to be firm in their faith, identities and in standing up for what they believe in; however, these examples of the Mothers are not the ones that are recognized explicitly in the Qur’an itself. There is an ultimate emphasis on praising these women for submission to God through being submissive wives to their husbands, in which they find honor through subjugation and suppressing their own needs. Rather than being lauded for their individual characteristics and accomplishments, their individualities are erased in their reduction to submissive wives to a single husband. Even though other parts of the Qur’an and Islamic history contradict this reduction, providing several examples of strong Muslim women known for their achievements and individual legacies affecting generations beyond them, it is undoubtable that being the epitome for Believing Women, the continued subjugation of wives by husbands are accurately justified through a Qur’anic lens. Muhummad is looked to as an epitome of submitting to God and his marriages are examples Muslims are encouraged to look to for success and harmony; this is rather irresponsible to suggest when his wives’ experiences are erased and trivialized, ultimately resulting in the continual gaslighting of women’s needs and desires within a marriage. 

It often baffles me when well-meaning Muslim people, including progressive Muslim feminists, get defensive about Islam when it comes to women’s rights when people find religious reasoning to justify why a man felt emboldened to betray or mistreat a woman or multiple women married to him. After all, the prophet himself was not the best husband. Even though Muslims epitomize and romanticize the connection he had with Aisha, his favorite wife, there are records of her suffering tremendously in her marriage to him. To be fair, there are many Muslims who acknowledge that the prophet was not a perfect man and that his marriages were not ideal, and his wives weren’t exactly content. They also put a lot of emphasis on the monogamous first marriage he had with Khadija, 15 years his senior, who he may have loved even more than Aisha and who he still talked about after her passing. However, it is not objective to cherry pick when describing his overall affect on his wives as a husband. They have the belief that Islam’s manifestation was challenging the cultural flaws of the region of where it was revealed. For others who hold onto the belief that it is simply culture and not Islam that emboldens men to mistreat their wives and betray them in marriages, they neglect the prophet’s mistreatment and dismissiveness of his wives. They don’t stop to think about the unfairness that “God” supposedly granted him to treat his wives unjusty, when God is supposed to be the Most Just. They emphasize the verses requiring men to be protectors and providers, while glossing over the ways in which the Qur’an enables men to have authority over women, limiting their autonomy. Just because women are given rights under a patriarchal system does not women are free from men’s clutches, especially given that men are the gatekeepers of these rights in the first place. Yes, Qur’anic verses explicitly command men to kind and just to women including their wives. At the same time, the systems under which women are under the control and whims of men are upheld. And the prophet who is supposed to serve as an example for all mankind defies the just treatment called for in the Qur’an through his own marriages.

Popular discourse states that because the culture in which the Qur’an and Islam were revealed was so patriarchal and misogynistic and the men would be resistant to granting women rights, God could not grant women as much freedom and autonomy immediately. There’s also the idea, especially for people who promote benevolent patriarchy not seeing anything wrong with the domination of women by men as long as women are still being treated with certain standards of decency, that women still need to  be “kept in line” and under the guardianship of men. All in all, there is the idea that it is part of God’s plan to ensure the dignity of women even as men’s authority over them are sustained with divine ordination. The reason I have a hard time accepting this idea is because it contradicts God’s power and outrage throughout the rest of the Qur’an. God had destroyed towns and people for transgressions against monotheism, and in the most patriarchally popular interpretations of the story of Lot, God was angered by same-sex desire and acting upon it; it should be noted that more progressive interpretations believe that this story was condemning sexual assault rather than homosexual acts. Despite my criticisms of the Qur’an, having studied the translations myself, the latter “progressive” interpretation seems to be the most accurate. It is interesting to me that given how patriarchy has plagued societies throughout human history, harmining both men and women even as it promoted men’s domination over women, God does not grant special powers or cause special events to happen to fight it. And more interestingly, despite the plethora of patriarchal oppression over women, God never appoints female prophets or messengers with divinely blessed abilities to overtake oppressive men. Yet, male prophets and messengers are always centered in their own oppression when they are marginalized in non-gender discrimination. In other words, oppression seems to be noteworthy enough only when men happen to be the victims; when women are victims of oppression, it is only if men face that same kind of oppression as in the case of Moses and Asiya facing oppression from the pharaoh. Given the overall patriarchal biases throughout the Qur’an and the lack of acknowledgment of the systemic oppression of women through patriarchy where women are expected to shrink themselves to appease men, I am less inclined to believe that the text was not male centric and entirely from God– if it is of divine origin at all. 

Names Promote Intimacy

Being known by and referred to by name makes relationships more intimate than a name not being known. In Islam, God has 99 names reflecting various attributes– and with reflection and speculation, we can see that this serves as a means of bringing people closer to God and deepening their understanding and connection to Them. Muslims are meant to feel a deeper connection to the prophets, especially the last prophet Muhummad, than they are to non-prophets since again, prophets are supposed to serve as the most intimate guides to God. And as we know, all of the male 25 prophets, as well as the potential single female prophet of Mary, making a total of 26 potential prophets, are mentioned by name. Inevitably, with the use of direct names, readers feel a closer relationship with those who are named versus those who are not named– especially when they are centered as characters to be emulated for the pious readers. 

If the Qur’an is a book made to guide women to an intimate relationship with God as it has been understood to be for men, then why again is the structure of it made more intimately understandable and relatable for men?

I do agree with the notion that women are men are equal, but different– and I agree that people of all genders– whether they are women, men, non-binary, etc– are equal, but different. At the same time, I believe and know that people of all genders are also the same in many ways on the virtue of being human. Although intellectual, creative and then personality traits and experiences different amongst different people whether they are the same gender or not, being one gender over another does not make someone’s intellectual, creative or spiritual parts more or less competent based on the virtue of biology– which patriarchy has led society at large to believe in both ancient and modern times. None of these gender identities make anyone more worthy and entitled to autonomy than the others. 

Based on my values, observations and knowledge, I believe that women and men are equal in value and equal, existentially both in their differences and in what makes them the same. And I believe that nature and nurture play roles in how people’s personhood manifest; however, nature and nurture do not always align with someone’s soul, or, in less spiritual terms, in the ultimate potential of who they are. For example, a person may be born a female, and then be assumed to be a girl and then grow into a woman. Considering this person grew up in the United States, by society’s standards, she was nurtured to align with US American expectations of a girl and then a woman; however, at their core, this person actually identifies as a man. And of course, we have people who are born biologically female and are assumed to be the identity of a girl and then woman, and that is exactly how she identifies in authenticity to herself; in other words, she is a cis woman. There are various factors at play, sometimes predictable and unpredictable in how they affect different individuals. We can hold multiple truths and be welcoming to new ones as we discover different parts of ourselves, different parts of other people and as we observe different parts of the world. 

With that being said, it is incredibly limiting not only to use men as the epitomes of connecting to God, serving as examples for men and women– but it is even more limiting when these male archetypes are depicted or interpreted to fit a very narrow understanding of manhood. 

Not only does using a specific archetype of manhood limit men and even moreso women from being able to relate to their connection to God, but it also further positions women further away from being a primary human epitome of God’s creation as she is further pushed into a limiting box and vague box of what is understood to be “feminine.” In other words, epitomizing a specific archetype of masculinity through various male prophets in order to depict idealized relation and submission to God perpetuates that women will never be able to meet up since women are not “masculine” in this conservative understanding, on the basis of being a woman and not a man in the first place where she is given the opportunity to exhibit men’s masculinity. This manifests unconsciously as the idea that as a woman, you will never be able to measure up to the “masculine” standards exhibited by prophets since you will never be a man; yet as a Muslim woman, you are expected to accept that there is no gender hierarchy and that you’re equal even if different. Explicitly, you’re being told you’re equal despite your gender. Implicitly, you’re being taught the opposite. Ultimately, no matter how much you do, you will never measure up to the standard of a man because a man is made the standard– even if not bluntly stated.

When women aren’t recognized directly, their contributions are minimized and they are not honored with the depth that men who are directly recognized are. Their efforts and contributions are deemed as less significant than that of men’s. As mentioned earlier in this article, you see this showing up in modern day; for example, the labor of women homemakers and mothers are under-appreciated and mistaken for being easy tasks not worthy of compensation while labor in male dominated fields outside of the home are given more validity by society. Even within workplaces outside of the home, women are paid less than men for the same roles despite having the same or even a higher level of skills– and companies recognize the value that women give with their labor at a slower rate than they give to men. In other words, women and what they offer are not taken as seriously. This of course comes from women not being valued to the extent that they are worthy of and deserving of. This patriarchal, misogynistic devaluing of women and what are considered feminine is of course nothing new, and even if great progress has been made which must be recognized and celebrated, we still aren’t done. 

And because many societies globally devalue what is considered to be associated with women and they label woman-attributes through the label of “feminine”, devaluing the “feminine” is harmful towards men, too. What are labeled as “feminine” and “masculine” are not exclusive to any gender, and the proportioning of masculine and feminine into gendered boxes strips people of their authenticities and ultimately of their humanity and moral and ethical goodness– especially when you consider how “femininity” is attributed to parts that are considerate of other people, love, kindness, softness, empathy, feeling, etc and “masculinity” is societally understood to be attributed to logic, thinking, analysis, being factual, rational, etc. People who are proponents of boxed gender roles and therefore gender limitations but insist they aren’t sexist will assert that concept again of “different but equal,” where women and men are supposedly complementary to each other on the basis of feminine and masculine respectively. I reject that these understandings of feminine versus masculine are accurately proportioned to women versus men, given that much of the “feminine” traits attributed to women entail rejection of their own “masculine” traits required for their personhood and self actualization and maturity; on the same hand, I reject the idea that this understanding of “masculine” is accurately encompassing of a man as it rejects his humanity and ability to connect to and honor others. All in all, the rigid proportioning of people into these boxes is in denial of their natural and authentic multifacetedness and results in dehumanization. 

Language matters 

Another very obvious part of the Qur’an that reflect patriarchy is the fact that the masculine form of “He” is used to refer to God, but the form of “She” is never used. Of course, it is very clear that God is neither a man nor a woman throughout Islamic consensus; the agreement is that God is beyond human. At the same time, this doesn’t take away from how God is still referred to with the masculine pronoun when neutral references of God in Arabic (eg, “Allah,” “We,” etc) are not mentioned. It is argued that the “He” is not meant to relate God to men, and neither is it meant to favor what are considered masculine over what is feminine; however, it is still worth questioning why, if that is the case, only “He” is used. If God is truly portrayed to be both the source of what are considered feminine and masculine, and God is not meant to favor one over the other or to be revered by one over the other, then why is there such a resistance of using the “She” pronoun in addition to the “He”? Why not just use “Allah” or a different name of God and avoid pronouns altogether then, especially if Islam and the Qur’an are so careful to avoid gendering God? I often see further justification for God being labeled as “He” and still holding an egalitarian existence based on the fact that there was no single gender-neutral pronoun in the Arabic language; in order to avoid confusion of using a plural pronoun like “They,” “He” was used to emphasize God’s monotheist nature– of which is a core tenet of Islam. However, if that was the case, then how is “We” still used as a pronoun and understood to be descriptive of a singular God of an explicitly monotheistic Islam? Why is “He,” again, still the standard for the singular– why is there a gendered standard at all, if again, God is not meant to be dominantly masculine? In order to emphasize that there isn’t a preference for “he” over “she,” then why is “she” not used alongside “he”? 

This is reflective of how men, again, are the standard, when it comes to religion and more conservative, traditional interpretations of it– both within Islam and other Abrahamic religions. Even if explicitly there is a message that God is neither male nor female, man nor woman, God’s affirmation of men’s dominance explicitly and implicitly throughout the Qur’an suggests something different, where God is the deification of a man. At the very least, God is a source existing to validate men’s authority, even if women are still honored– albeit to a lesser extent. Despite the verses stating that men and women are to be considered and rewarded equally for their good deeds and godly submission, and while I agree that the Qur’an promotes this message overall even among my criticisms of it, the idea of women’s equality and personhood are challenged as subservience to men are presented as a means of worship. As a result, men are indirectly deified or at the very least, presented as a gateway to God.

I’ve seen an argument from Yasmine Mogahed, whose book, Reclaim Your Heart, I read when I was still a practicing Muslim in college. I remember it having several spiritual gems that I appreciated, and at the same time I was grossed out by several expressions of sexism towards women that were sugar coated and lacked critical thinking. Mogahed had stated that in society, men are used as the standard. Women’s worth and competence, both internally and externally, are often perceived based on how much they can emulate men. And while I do agree with that general statement describing society’s limitations as consequences of patriarchy and misogyny, it’s arrogant and sexist to assume that women’s desires to make choices for things that men have traditionally had the privilege to stems from their desire to be like men to feel good enough. It’s sexist to assume that women want positions of leadership, career growth outside of being a mother and homemaker, to have shorter hair, etc only because men want it– which Mogahed arrogantly asserts in her book. It’s interesting to me that she coins this very real phenomena of women often being measured up against the standard of men, yet she fails to acknowledge how within the Qur’an and Hadith, men are literally set up as the standard in various implicit and explicit ways. She seems to have it at first, but then doesn’t. 

First of all, women are not a monolith. It’s not that women want something simply because men have it— women want freedom to choose because they are human beings just like men are. They also desire autonomy over their own life and personhood, just like men have had the privilege to have throughout periods of humanity based on their gender. Women also are worthy of and deserving of recognition for their efforts, contributions and positive impacts just like men are– women are also worthy of being considered a standard, period. The idea that women do not desire autonomy and want to be taken care of akin to parents taking care of a child is propaganda designed to keep women dependent on men and fearful of their own competence, as women are conditioned to believe that they lack it and therefore cannot trust themselves. Meanwhile, men qualified less than them are deemed as experts and leaders even as they exploit people and have long lists of transgressions against those they are supposedly responsible for leading. 

This point of men being set as the standard partially as a result of Islam based on Qur’an and especially Hadith, rather than this being exclusviley a social phenomenon only outside of Islam, is further emphasized by the following hadith: 

“Many men reached perfection but none among the women reached perfection except Mary, the daughter of ‘ `Imran, and Asya, Pharaoh’s wife. And the superiority of `Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid to other kinds of food.”  (Al-Bukhari)

The interesting thing is that I found this Hadith recently from an article by none other than Yasmin Mogahed on Yaqeen Institute’s website. Benevolent patriarchy is reeking from this Hadith in and of itself, let alone from Mogahed’s article. This Hadith, and the purpose of using it in the article, is by no doubt meant to send a message of “look, Islam includes women, too!” Explicitly, at first glance for a lot of practicing Muslims, it looks like this is meant to be empowering towards women. Yes, it’s great to see that women are included in the discussion– there’s a female archetype who serves as a great example of having faith in and submitting to God. However: 

Why is a woman the exception, when men are the standard? In this hadith, it’s disturbing how men are painted as more frequent in “perfection” than women are– further emphasizing the concept that men are more adept at connecting to God. Despite Mogahed critiquing how men are used as the standard that society paints for women to match, Mogahed herself perpetuates the standard of men through her own ideology. I cannot help but notice instances upon instances like these where benevolent patriarchy is so embedded into so much of Islamic discussion, and how easily, how frequently, sexism towards women is glossed over. 

It’s further baffling to me how often this benevolent sexism shows up in discussions of women empowerment which serve the purpose of keeping Muslim women in the faith or attracting non-Muslim women into the faith. More conservative, traditional and orthodox scholars, especially when those scholars are men, are so clouded by their privilege, since they are not affected by gender based exclusion and think that they are proving Islam exuding gender equality when they notice any inclusion of women, neglecting that the inclusion comes secondary to that of men. And in addition to these men, conservative and traditional women scholars themselves are so used to normalizing their own decentering in narratives with God, that they don’t even realize how problematic their own thoughts are. Like Mogahed, many of these women to their credit will develop their own personal, empowering relationship with God but fail to realize how their own religious texts and sources still favor and credit the worship of men over that of women. 

With further consideration, this Hadith further exhibits how men are excused for their ethical and moral shortcomings, still being favored over women. It is no secret that throughout human history, patriarchy has been persistent in subtle and blunt ways where men have been the oppressors of women. As both conservative and progressive followers of Islam love to discuss, Islam was revolutionary in granting women rights and without it, many injustices towards women from pre-Islamic times would continue to persist. 

However, it is not lost on me that the Qur’an and Hadith still greatly favored gender-based oppressors being men with the oppressed being women and even seem sympathetic and excusing of men. For example, the Qur’an allows men to have female concubines in addition to multiple wives, and instructs men on how to serve as guardians over women and discipline them, given their assumed authority (and literal ownership in the case of slaves) over women. Despite the women being the oppressed, and despite the men doing the oppressing, Qur’an revelation and instructions regarding marriage and master-slave relationships are talking to men primarily. Isn’t it interesting that the aforementioned Hadith states that men are more frequently “perfected” than women when it’s men who are doing the oppressing, then? What does this say about women, then, in their worthiness of God and about their competence in character and godliness, generally speaking? From my analysis and critical thinking, I continue to see the themes of men being coddled based on their gender at the expense of women, and women being expected to deal with it. I know that there are verses in the Qur’an and there are Hadith that implore and even command men to treat women kindly and justly; but at the end of the day, that good behavior towards women is still in the context of men having authority over women. 

As a former Muslim, I do appreciate Islam being a catalyst for gender equality and equity and give credit to Islam for increasing and protecting the dignity of women in many ways. While still recognizing the gender-based revolutionary aspects of Islam as it pertains to women, I still cannot erase that many of women’s rights, based on the Qur’an and Hadith, were still based on their confinement to men in their lives. 

For example, bringing again the example from above, the prophet Muhummad’s wives are chastised into obeying him and suppressing their autonomy and desires, while Muhummad is given the freedom to marry as many women as he wishes to in addition to having female concubines he is entitled to sexual relations with. His wives are told that they must submit to him in order to submit to God, but Muhummad is excused from treating his wives equally and with justice in the same ways other Muslim men are required to whether they practice monogamy or polygamy. Despite their sacrifices, while being recognized as Mothers of the Believers, his wives are not recognized by name in the Qur’an; they are not granted the status of prophets or messengers, or anything different but of equal status. How many times do we see a similar thing, with wives being expected to sacrifice their own personhood and desires for the sake of supporting their husband’s mission and purpose, only not to be recognized in the ways that they deserve where they still acquire a lower status in society? Especially when that status is at the end of the day, associated with association to a man– to their husband– and a high status is primarily if not only acquired through her own husband’s high status?

What I keep seeing with this part of my analysis, especially in connection to the use of masculine pronouns in addition to the centering of male narratives and exclusive prophetic recognition towards men despite women’s contributions and significances is that while equality among sexes and genders are explicitly stated, the Qur’an implicitly shows inequality. As for the Hadith, not only do they implicitly show that men’s worship are favored over women, but they also explicitly, undeniably, favor the worship of men to God over that of women. After all, according to Hadith, assuming submission in obedience to their husbands are considered an act of worship towards God. To be fair, there are contradictory Hadith, too, that favor women at times, but despite these contradictions I attest that they overwhelmingly hold sexist messaging positioning women as subservient to men. 

If the explanation is that the Qur’an was revealed in a patriarchal society, then why is it that this revelation, being a source that was supposed to be of divine origin and challenge the social hierarchies and ensure equality and equity among the sexes and genders, took on the vessel of the patriarchal structure instead of having the patriarchal structure explicitly challenged? Why is it that it teaches men how to supposedly treat women right within the confines of patriarchy, but doesn’t challenge the patriarchy itself? At least, not explicitly?

There is a reason that we see a lot of questions about women’s status in Islam in the first place, while the status of men based on their gender is never questioned– unless of course, those blissfully, socially unaware of their privilege as men get offended when the topic of revering women through a religious lens is brought up. I remember when I first watched Celine Ibrahim’s video that I mentioned earlier, a man in the comments was triggered. He stated his annoyance at the fact that there was an entire discussion dedicated to the significance of women in the Qur’an, explaining that he would be annoyed if there was a video honing in on men’s contributions in the Qur’an. He was so much in his privileged bubble of being a man that he was ignorant to empathizing with how most of the discussions on character and piety from the Qur’an already center men, coupled with the fact that all of the prophets are recognized as men and only men are named in the Qur’an. The irony of his ire was quite funny. Anyway– the fact that the relevance and significance of women has to be asked and answered in the first place, the fact that it’s not obvious – this is a result, a consequence, of them not being as obvious. This is a consequence of women’s existence, women’s relationship to God being equal in status to men, women’s worthiness, women’s personhood and competence– being ambiguous in the first place throughout Islamic primary and secondary sources. If we didn’t have to continually prove that Islam isn’t sexist– that Hadith isn’t sexist, that the Qur’an isn’t sexist, instead of having a fully consistent message of gender equality and autonomy for all genders, then it would be easier to believe that Islam is not inherently misogynist, or benevolently patriarchal at best. The ambiguity and the inconsistencies challenge feminism while also challenging sexism against women. It upholds patriarchy, whether it’s more obvious or sugar coated with benevolence, while in other instances challenging it. 

Not only is it often a challenge for women to secure a sense of worthiness where they feel enough in their identity of a woman in the eyes of God, especially given all of the explicit sexism in popular, traditional interpretations of Islamic sources where men seem to be favored– but it is also a challenge for women to feel close to God when there aren’t many relatable stories for their struggles in society where other women serve as archetypes to embody. Sure, there is Asiya, who serves a great example. And there is Biqis again, the Queen of Sheba. And there is Mary again. But why aren’t there female archetypes for more deeper issues, especially when it comes to combating gender based oppression? And beyond combating oppression, why isn’t there more on women being instructed to tap into their authenticity in connection to God beyond their physical looks, chastity and beyond their wifely duties to men?

Why isn’t there direct addressing of women in holding their own in patriarchal society, in unjust society, where they are directly empowered by God the same way their oppressors (men) are?

When I was a devout Muslim woman, I accepted the female archetypes of the Qur’an being enough for me, even though they weren’t given as much centering and recognition as men were. Prior to going deep into the analyses I expressed in this article accompanying me after leaving Islam, I tried to force myself to be satisfied with the notion that women had different but no less equal roles from men. From Islamic Sunday School, I took for granted the explanations that there were only male prophets because “men were stronger” physically and emotionally, and that women had other responsibilities and roles in society. Into my adulthood when I dreadfully learned more about Muhummad and his life and actions, as well as how Islam dealt with issues of slavery and marriage and gender-based oppression, and analyzed the contexts and explanations behind the parts of the Qur’an that bothered me, I understood why the former explanations throughout my childhood were oversimplified, lacking and problematic. 

Experiencing Empowerment when Woman Archetypes are Actually Present

After reading a particular book focusing specifically on female archetypes in spiritual contexts, I came to realize even deeper the importance– the necessity– of having female archetypes in spiritual instructions, especially if those instructions are believed to be from a God that is supposed to free us through our submission to Them. 

And that book is Women Who Run with the Wolves by Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes. 

First of all, I am not at all condemning there being male or men archetypes. Part of my feminism is recognizing and advocating for the humanity of men; it’s not men that I hate and it’s not men that I seek to erase– rather, I seek to stand up against the systems of patriarchy that oppress women at the hands while distancing men from their souls. I believe in good men because I’m a feminist– I acknowledge that all human beings regardless of gender are responsible for their actions and for their resulting character. Because I acknowledge the free will of women and men, I am aware of the responsibility of women and men in societal fabrics, on both individual and collective levels. With that being said, I can see that it is beneficial and necessary for there to be male or man archetypes. I love seeing “masculine” archetypes and would grieve their erasure. I am not calling for an erasure of masculine empowerment– on the contrary, I think there needs to be more masculine empowerment and it is because of the lack of it that toxic masculinity is prevalent, encouraging misogyny and patriarchy. I am simply advocating for the inclusion, recognition and celebration of feminine or female archetypes, too– since these have been historically excluded by the domination of oppressive men (and even of women) with patriarchal ideologies. This book primarily focuses on woman archetypes, even though there are man archetypes present as secondary characters throughout some of the stories, too.

Women Who Run with the Wolves is a collection of different myths, legends and other stories where the author focuses on various archetypes of women; though I still see that the book could be beneficial for men and non-binary people to 1) understand and appreciate women more or 2) to also understand themselves and their lives, as much of the relatability of these archetypes extends beyond the experience of women and applies to all humans regardless of gender. This book is not a religious text originating from a particular religion like the Qur’an or the Bible are; yet, engaging with it made me feel so seen, heard and understood as a woman in a spiritual context, and helped me understand the concept of God and purpose when it comes to my identity as a woman much more than the Qur’an has. To credit the Qur’an, it has been most beneficial for me when it came to certain passages and surahs/chapters specifically highlighting God’s power and goodness. I wonder how different the holy book’s impact would have been had there been more equal representation and more explicit challenging of patriarchy. In addition to Women Who Run with the Wolves, other books centering women’s narratives have filled in the spiritual gaps from the Qur’an I’ve yearned to fill and misogynistic woundings I’ve wanted to heal from what I had experienced from the Qur’an. 

Conclusion

My purpose of this article is not to demonize Islam, the Qur’an and definitely not Muslims, but rather to offer objective criticisms of the text and justify why I do not believe it is of complete divine origin. I still want to recognize that the Qur’an still contains many spiritual gems and calls for justice and fighting against oppression, as well as showing up for humanity and promoting kindness as acts of submission to and worship of God. My point is that unfortunately, the Qur’an is not always consistent with this message and does not do enough for fighting the oppression and violence against women, often enabling it by enabling oppressive men under systems of patriarchy. In the future, I may write another article highlighting the parts of the Qur’an that I appreciate. I have another article where I discuss my journey out of Islam while still remaining tethered to it, if you would like to read it here. 

I don’t have enough confidence to say that the Qur’an as we know it, despite expert preservations of it, are perfectly God’s words. At the same time, I am hopeful that at least parts of it are from a morally, ethically perfect God. I hope that God exists and strive to prioritize God over religion, as I detail in the above mentioned article.