booke

women and islamic law 279The Verse of Guardianship (4:34)Having defined the crucial terms of nis§" and rij§l, we are now in aposition to understand the verse of guardianship:[Al-rij§l] are the protectors and maintainers [qaww§mån] of [ al-nis§"],because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, andbecause they support them from their means. Therefore the righteouswomen are [q§nit§t], and guard […] what God would have them guard.As to those women on whose part you fear […] ill-conduct, admonishthem (first). (Next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them(lightly) [sic]; but if they return […], seek not against them means (ofannoyance)—for God is most high, great (above you all). ( Al-Nis§"4:34)We have ruled out the possibility that the first line of this verse canbe interpreted as ‘Men are the protectors and maintainers of women’,because each of the two terms al-rij§l and al-nis§" refer to both menand women in this context. Let us say it again: to assume that al-rij§lmeans ‘men’ and al-nis§" ‘women’ is a serious mistake because in thisverse both terms are not gendered: al-rij§l refers to both men andwomen, and al-nis§" means ‘those who follow behind’. We need, ofcourse, to identify the middle term that connects al-rij§l and al-nis§".We know that the qaww§mån are ‘those in charge’ or ‘those withpower and competence’. Many well-meaning feminists have tried toreverse the supposed sexism of the verse and claim that qaww§månmeans ‘standing in service’, implying that men are not the mastersbut in fact the servants of women. This may sound quite appealingto some but it is frankly very far-fetched. It still suggests that oneshould keep a division between men and women, even if husbandsare now the alleged servants of their wives. It also fundamentallycontradicts the next line of the verse, ‘God has given to some [therij§l] more than others [the nis§"]’ [AH]. Such preference given byGod is incompatible with the notion of servitude. Some have claimedthat this verse makes it clear that Islam, in contrast with other religionsand cultures, does not want gender equality and hence treatsmen and women differently. We object to this because the verse doesnot exclusively address ‘male believers’ (mu"minån) and ‘female believers’(mu"min§t), the followers of MuÈammad (ß), but rather men andwomen in general. For us this implies that the verse must have ahigh degree of universality, to the extent that it is as applicable tomen and women in Tokyo or São Paulo as it is to men and women