Читать книгу Women in the Qur'an - Asma Lamrabet - Страница 9

IN THE VERY BEGINNING ...

We must go back, way back, to the story of human creation … The universal story and popular imagination are indelibly marked by a same and unique belief which transcends time, cultural space, religious dogma and the history of civilizations … This belief stipulates that Adam – as a man – was God’s first creation and that Eve, the woman, was created from one of Adam’s ribs.

Henceforth, this legendary truth has become the founding myth of the inferiority of women and we know the disastrous effect this type of concept has had throughout the history of humanity.

It remains undeniable that the affirmation of the inferiority of women as compared to men finds its origins in theological assumptions widely anchored in ways of thinking, both in Judaeo-Christian cultures and in Muslim lands. Without going into the metaphysical details, these main assumptions are found, with much continuity, in the interpretative texts of the religious traditions of the three monotheistic religions and one can summarize the main points through three observations which continuously return in universal religious history.

Firstly, there is this idea that woman was created from Adam’s rib, which equates to saying that her creation was necessarily secondary, Adam – man – being considered as the norm or representative of the human ideal.

The second observation is that which suggests that Eve is the primary cause of Adam’s eviction from Paradise, since it is she, according to this very widespread understanding, who incited Adam to transgress God’s command and to taste from the forbidden tree. She has become the undeniable muse of the legendary ‘original sin’.

And the final assumption, that woman was not only created from Adam, but she was created for him! An important nuance! It is from here that the entire culture of the oppression of women that we are familiar with has emerged and which has found its legitimacy in a particular religious discourse. Today, the majority of Christian exegetes consider the story of Adam and Eve to be symbolic and many theologians interpret it differently from traditional readings. They recognize the existence of many contradictions in the Bible and reject classical interpretations which they consider to be too literalistic.

As for Islam, or, rather the Qur’anic text itself, nowhere does one find this conception of Eve coming from Adam’s rib. Nonetheless, it is stupefying to see the extent to which the different commentaries and religious works, and moreover the Muslim imagination, have remained profoundly tainted by the traditionalist Judaeo-Christian understanding!

In the Qur’an, several verses illustrate a very different conception to that widely circulated nowadays. First we find a central verse in Surah al Nisā’ (Women):

O MANKIND! Be conscious of your Sustainer, who has created you out of one living entity, and out of it created its mate, and out of the two spread abroad a multitude of men and women [...] (al Nisā’ 4: 1)¹

It is very important to redefine the terminology used in the Qur’anic text concerning creation, because key words in this verse will be interpreted in the vast majority of cases according to a classical schema of the hierarchizationof human creation. In fact, in classical commentaries the term ‘nafs wahida’ refers to Adam as a masculine being and zawj to his wife.

However, a more structured approach indicates that the term ‘nafs’, which is feminine in Arabic, refers to a range of notions which one can translate according to the meaning of the text, as: person, individual, soul, essence, matter, spirit, or even breath of life.

As for the term ‘zawj’, it refers to both spouses, the pair or, the partner. It is often used to speak indistinguishably of the husband or wife and despite the fact it is grammatically masculine, it can be used both for the man or the woman.² In the Qur’an, it is often used to speak of a couple, and this, as much when discussing humans as plants or animals. It is what the Qur’an describes in this verse, for example:

And in everything have We created pairs,³ so that you might bear in mind [that God alone is One]. (al-Dhāriyāt 51: 49)⁴

Nevertheless, a great majority of scholars interpret the term ‘nafs’ as ‘Adam’ as a man or male and the term zawj as ‘wife’, which, according to this logic, reinforces the classical anthropomorphic representation of the origin of human creation. Since Adam is a man, the term ‘zawj’, as referred to by the Qur’an in this verse, refers to the female counterpart, namely Eve or Hawwa. Since the first exegetes drew widely from the pre-Islamic religious heritage in order to support their interpretations, the legend of the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib was widely reported and subsequently endorsed by Muslim scholars.

Starting from this assumption and certain supporting hadiths, the classical commentators concluded that Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs.

However, one notes firstly that in the Qur’an, Eve (or Hawwa) is not mentioned by her name. The significance of the term ‘zawj’ or ‘partner’ depends on the meaning of the verse or ‘siyaq al-ayah’. Based on the consistency and the orientation of the verse, the term ‘partner’ can be translated as either the man or the woman and sometimes, as is the case in this central verse, it remains totally abstract, apparently in order to better underline the Divine will to transcend gender when it comes to the first human design.

What’s more, there is no Qur’anic affirmation which specifies that the Adam of this initial creation was male and even less that Eve was drawn from one of his ribs! Some Muslim scholars, both classical and contemporary, question and even refute this type of interpretation which seems to be, according to them, largely influenced by the previous scriptural texts.

These thinkers consider that the term ‘Adam’ is used primarily in the Qur’an in its broadest meaning of ‘human being’ or ‘human kind’. In his various writings, the imam Muḥammad ‘Abdu suggests that Adam also refers to individual, human being, ‘al-insan’ or ‘bashar’. Adam, as he is mentioned in this verse, specifically seems to refer to ‘humanity’ in its entirety, which amounts to saying that in creating Adam, God created the human race, male and female at once, in its initial form.

This reading, which is dubbed reformist to distinguish it from classical approaches, advocates a single unique provenance for humanity, in other words a humanity which emerged from a single matter and same origin. Still within this reformist perspective, the objective of the verse describing creation would be to unequivocally affirm the original equality of all human beings. Unlike the classical reading which translates the term ‘nafs’ by ‘man’ or ‘Adam’ and zawj by ‘Eve’ or ‘the first woman’, the term refers here and according to the perspective of these reformists, to ‘the original essence’, whereas ‘zawj’ refers to ‘partner’, which supports the idea of a full human equality, beyond any considerations based on gender or race. Humanity was thus created from this ‘first entity’ or ‘initial truth’, and through his unique interpretation the definition by Imam Muhammad ‘Abdu who, differs markedly from the classical commentators.

In fact imam ‘Abdu has retained two quite similar versions of the term ‘nafs wahida’. One suggests that this initial entity refers to both sexes, male and female, which will subsequently evolve to produce the two partners and from there, all men and women. The other version considers that nothing in the Qur’an refutes the idea that this initial ‘nafs’ is feminine, a view which is supported by the fact the term ‘nafs’ itself is feminine and that the term ‘zawj’ – masculine – implies husband since, in another verse, it is said:

[…] so that man (zawjaha: ‘her husband’) might incline [with love] towards woman (nafs).⁵ (al-Aʿrāf 7: 189)

Imam ‘Abdu sees a justification of this reading in the titling of the surah, introduced by this verse, ‘surah al-Nisā’ or ‘The women’. This is a beautiful example of a feminine reading ….

It is clear that based on what some modern commentators have retained and without omitting the part of the occult or ‘ghayb’ which characterizes any sacred text, one can suggest without taking too many risks that, in the Qur’anic version, human creation is not expressed through gender and that ‘the Qur’an indiscriminately uses masculine and feminine words and images, in order to describe creation according to a single origin and substance. It is implicit in a great number of passages of the Qur’an that Allah’s original creation was an undifferentiated humanity, neither man, nor woman’.

It seems, therefore, that God created man and woman simultaneously from a single substance and that these two human beings constitute the gender-based elements of a single, same reality. This corresponds precisely to this notion of dualism of creation, which is referred to several times in the Qur’an:^B

And in everything have We created oppos ites, so that you might bear in mind [that God alone is One]. (al-Dhāriyāt 51: 49)

In fact, man and woman as a ‘pair’ or ‘couple’ will confirm the central principle of the Qur’an: the creator is One whereas all of creation is in ‘pairs’. And the term ‘pairs’ itself speaks to the notion of equality at all levels. This reformist reading of human creation seems to be the closest to the Qur’anic message which promotes equality and human equity. One also notes that the entire story of the creation of humanity revolves around the central concept of Unicity or ‘tawḥīd’, which is the very essence of Muslim spirituality.

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that a number of classical exegetes refer to certain hadiths, which refer to women in general, in order to constrain more or less the meaning of the text, in particular that concerning creation, and to extract a particular conception, namely that of a subordinate creation of women! This sadly leads to a religious justification of the structural inferiority of women.

Concerning the hadith taken as reference for the interpretation of the verse on creation, it seems there exists at least three versions, more or less similar, according to which the Prophet describes woman as ‘created from a crooked rib which must not be forced at the risk of breaking it.’⁶

The study of the Prophetic tradition suggests this hadith was formulated within the context of a set of recommendations relative to male-female relations and according to which the Prophet encouraged men to display kindness and softness towards women. The resemblance of these hadiths to the story of Adam and Eve in the biblical tradition encouraged scholars to draw parallels and conclude that Eve was brought forth from one of Adam’s ribs. One notes in passing that the hadith in question nowhere refers to Adam. This interpretation is found traditionally in the majority of works of tafasīr despite the fact that, as we noted, nothing in the Qur’an affirms this concept.

One should not be surprised of this comparison undertaken between the tradition of the Prophet and the Judaeo-Christian myth because the hadith in question was elaborated in the context of a series of exhortations undertaken by the Prophet to his companions during the departing pilgrimage, where the topic itself was the recommendation to men to treat women well. The end of this hadith is the famous warning directed at believers: ‘Be good towards your women.’ The use of the imagery of the rib – and it is worth restating that the Prophet is not referring to Adam’s rib – is in fact a metaphor, used according to an allegorical linguistic style much appreciated by the Arabs of the time, in order to advise men to show sensitivity and kindness towards women. It is important to specify here that the said hadiths were not evoked by the Prophet in order to explain the biological aspect of human creation, as some contemporary⁷ Muslim thinkers rightly point out, rather the objective was to challenge certain sexist traditions according to a very pedagogical strategy.

The Prophet, as was his habit, sought to inculcate in his companions the rules of propriety and consideration towards women and, thus, to soften the harsh norms of the era.

It is, therefore, obvious that any interpretation which draws from the hadiths in order to advance arguments in favour of the secondary creation of women and which attempts to diminish the status of women is necessarily erroneous and must be considered as being in opposition to the fundamental principles of the Qur’an and of the teachings of the Prophet.

This type of allegation, which is at the root of an entire universal heritage of the depreciation (discrediting?) of women, has long justified – and continues to do so in many cultures – a logic of oppression and humiliation of women.

A scholar as famous as Imam al-Razi believes that, in the following verse, can be found the evidence that women were created only in order to satisfy men’s needs:

And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates out of your own kind, so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are signs indeed for people who think! (al-Rūm 30: 21)

‘There is proof in this verse that the creation of women is similar to that of animals, of plants and all other types of blessings[…] The creation of women is therefore a true blessing for us (men) and they have, therefore, essentially been created for us[…] This is explained through the fact that women are weak by their physical constitution, that they are foolish and puerile like children … ’⁸

If women were created by and for men, this confirms their structural inferiority and the requirement of their submissiveness. This type of assertion constitutes a recurring theme in all classical religious discourse and ends up outlining an ideological framework within which the subordination of women is incorporated into the language of the Sacred.

It is saddening to see the extent to which these scholars, who were negatively influenced by their socio-cultural environment and certain previous religious traditions, backed through their respective interpretations by an entire body of literature demeaning women and justifying the concept of male domination over women, in the name of Islam. From this, one understands how the vast majority of the religious arguments which legitimize the subordination of women draw their inspiration from this type of interpretation of Qur’anic verses, interpretations which with time are considered as somehow part of dogma, even confining the Qur’an itself to a secondary position.

It is well known that within other religious traditions, the indictment of the first woman, as being the one who led Adam – man – to be thrown out of Paradise, is obvious and this image of a temptress is undeniable. An entire legend full of imagery, with the forbidden tree, the snake and Eve, symbols of temptation and the fall from Eden, have been transmitted from generation to generation as being part of immutable religious concepts. None of these previous suppositions can be found in the Qur’an, not even in the form of a veiled reference.

Nonetheless, famous Muslim exegetes refer to these types of commentaries in their different works of tafasīr.⁹ In fact, an exegete as famous as al-Qurṭubi states in his commentary that it was Eve who succumbed first to Satan and that it was she who led to the downfall of Adam, thus becoming the first source of temptation for men!¹⁰

Yet, nowhere in the Qur’an does it incriminate the first woman in humanity. The Qur’anic verses couldn’t be clearer: It was the first human couple which was responsible and it has never been a question, according to revelation, of blaming one or the other.

(And We said: ‘O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden, and eat freely thereof, both of you, whatever you may wish; but do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers.’) al-Baqarah 2: 35

And it was both of them who succumbed to the temptation of Satan:

(But Satan caused them both to stumble therein, and thus brought about the loss of their erstwhile state. And so We said: ‘Down with you, [and be henceforth] enemies unto one another; and on earth you shall have your abode and your livelihood for a while!’) al-Baqarah 2: 36

Then the Qur’an describes how both of them, regretting their disobedience and dismayed at their fall from grace, implored God in order that He might forgive them.

That error, a symbol of the first act of human disobedience, was absolutely absolved by the Creator. It is one of the core concepts of Islam according to which the rehabilitation of human beings is total and entirely assumed by the Creator. There is no trace of the concept of the infamous original sin, weighing heavily on the whole of humanity, an irreparable error as it is described in the Christian tradition. According to the Islamic understanding, the forbidden tree is a symbol heavy with significance, designed to test this first couple of human beings, Adam and Eve. In the face of their clear-sightedness, their lucidity and their repentance, Allah forgives them …

And from there, a sort of alliance between God and human beings was sealed via the intermediary of humanity’s first couple … No original sin but rather a sort of original pact between God and His creatures.¹¹

That first erring has, therefore, not been written eternally into humanity’s destiny as it has been transmitted in other religious traditions. God Says:

And whatever [wrong] any human being commits rests upon himself alone […] (al-Anʿām 6: 164)

There is no notion of sin in the Christian sense of the term, nor eternal Divine punishment with its concepts of guilt, suffering or redemption.

The story of Adam and Eve, as it was interpreted in the biblical tradition and by extension in other religious traditions, is far removed from that advocated by the Qur’anic text.

In fact, in tracing the creation of these first human beings, the Qur’an depicts what could be referred to as the first communal human experience symbolized by these two first creatures. Firstly, God honoured the human being by referring to him as - ‘khalifa’¹² – on Earth or the ‘legatee’ of His knowledge. Then, Adam and Eve were raised to the ranks of ‘learned beings’, among those who ‘know’, in front of whom the angels – perfect beings – prostrated.

The angels prostrated in front of this human creature because God inculcated knowledge in him! Knowledge is at the root of creation … Humans are above angels, despite the perfection of the latter, due to knowledge, reason and intelligence, qualities inherent to human beings.

The prostration of angels in front of human beings is the revelation of humanism in all its splendour as stated by the great Iranian thinker Ali Shariati¹³

These two beings created by God lived their first human trial in Paradise, when they infringed the Divine recommendation due to their weakness, their imperfection, in other words due to their humanity.

It was the first human experience of freedom ….

The first human uncertainty, the very first doubt, the first lesson in humility also … despite their superiority in relation to the angels who prostrate before their knowledge, they are not infallible.

The Qur’an thus offers us a beautiful depiction of the human experience within the couple. Humanity’s first couple will experience this first test in perfect communion. First man and first woman together, intimately connected, taken up the challenge of life ….

The Qur’an retraces in a harmonious fashion their fears and their joys, then their disobedience and their hopes, without ever distinguishing one from the other, and certainly not by denigrating one in relation to the other. Together they transgress and it is together that they repented. It is also together that they began a new destiny ….

A beautiful example of tribulations, patience, repentance and hope, whereby the return to God is always liberating.

A story of human experience which is both eternal and continuously renewed.

______________

1. Translation by Muhammed Asad.

2. The term ‘zawj’ is used in the Qur’an to refer to both the masculine (al-Baqarah 2: 230, al-Mujadilah 58: 1) and the feminine (al-Nisā’ 4: 20, al-Baqarah 2: 102)

3. Lamrabet prefers ‘pairs’ here to Asad’s ‘opposites’ for zawj (Editor).

4. Translation by Muhammed Asad.

5. Translation by Muhammed Asad; parenthesis notes by Asma Lamrabet.

6. Hadith reported by Abu Hurayra in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

7. Rachid al-Ghannoushi, Al-Mar’a Bayna al-Qur’an wa Waqi’ al-Muslimīn, (London, Maghreb Center for Research and Translations, 2000), 15.

8. Fakhr ar-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Kabīr, Mafatih al-Ghayb, pp. 11–13.

9. Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsīr that a number of scholars which he refers to draw on ancient monotheistic sources [‘Isra‘iliyaat’] the story of the snake and of Satan, see p. 80.

10. Al-Qurṭubi, Al-Jami’ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, Vol. I, p.408.

11. Tariq Ramadan, Les musulmans D’Occident et l’avenir de l’Islam, (Paris: Sinbad-Actes Sud, 2003), p. 36.

12. The term khalīfa is often translated as vicegerent or curator

13. Ali Shariati, ‘Man’s creation from the Islamic viewpoint’. See, http://www.shariati.com/english/human.html