Women's Intelligence and the Islamic Tradition: Difference between revisions

The Islamic tradition from the Hadith and later material agrees on the general supposition that women are inferior in intelligence vis-a-vis men. That all women are created less intelligent than their male counterparts is used as an explanation for several Islamic doctrines and rules of jurisprudence, including the belief that women make up the majority of the denizens of Hell and the lower value of a woman's testimony against a man's in Islamic Shari'ah courts.

According to the Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad's once declared that the majority of the inhabitants of Hell are women.^[1] When asked why, he said it was because they are deficient in intelligence and religion, and because they are ungrateful to their husbands. The Hadith clearly presents Muhammad's belief as being that all women are less intelligent than their male counterparts; the traditional Islamic view is that this deficiency was not mitigated or qualified in any way be the prophet.

In Islamic scriptures

In the Hadith

In the Quran

Modern revisionary perspectives

Muhammad was referring to that specific group of women alone (Dr. Rasha al-Disuqi)

Dr. Rasha al-Disuqi is a professor of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) at al-Azhar University, a former lecturer at California Polytechnic State University, and holds a PhD in Islamic studies from the University of Wales.^[2] Al-Disuqi has been a key proponent in recent times of the idea that Muhammad, in the relevant portions of scripture, was merely referring to the group of women in front of him during the time of his address and not all women in general. Al-Disuqi's argument, colliding with classical interpretations, has been subjected to criticism both from traditional authorities and critics.

Not a blanket statement for all Women

Al-Disuqi's conclusion rests in part on the argument that because while making the relevant statements Muhammad was present in a specific time, place, and situation, his statements cannot be taken to be generally applicable. This argument of al-Disuqi's upsets both traditional Islamic hermeneutical practice and what might be considered a plain reading of the scriptures concerned.

In traditional interpretive practice, Islamic scholars rely on the maxim that "the meaning [of scripture] is based on the generality of the wording and not the specificity of the circumstance" (العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب).^[3] The theological idea behind this practice is that since Allah tasked Muhammad with providing laws and beliefs for humankind for all eternity while still, as a human, being bound to a specific time and place, his followers would necessarily have to extrapolate his teachings which emerged in particular circumstances into future-proof, universalized formulations. Accordingly, traditional Islamic scholars agreed that if this were the case, then Muhammad would have to explicitly declare a teaching of his to be time-limited or otherwise non-generalizable in order for it not to be extrapolated into the future - otherwise there would be no way to distinguish his general proclamations from his temporal ones.

Since the scripture diminishing women's intelligence contains no such explicit qualification which limits Muhammad's comments to the women in his presence and because the scriptures also explicitly give women's lesser intelligence as the reason for the eternal Quranic law disabling women as testifiers in court, the classical understanding of these statements has always been that women were, as a rule, less intelligent than men. Classical scholars have also pointed out that the law justified with the teaching of women's lesser intelligence is itself not qualified temporally - Quran 2:282 does not say, for instance, that women's testimony will be worth half of man's for "a limited time". Thus, with an unqualified pronouncement in the hadith coupled with an unqualified legal ruling in the Quran, the classical understanding has always been that women are, as a rule, less intelligent. Other evidence that has been cited to this effect, though not explicitly linked with women's intelligence in the hadith itself, is Muhammad's teaching that women should "never" be the leaders of nations.^[4]

The same reasoning for the permanence and universality of women's intelligence is traditionally used to arrive at the permanence and universality of women's religious disability. As a works-based religion where one's fate hereafter is determined deed-for-deed, according to one's acts in this life (except for those cases where God feels like bestowing his fadl, or unequal favor upon someone), Islam teaches that a person is not generally judged by their ability, but their output. In a famous hadith, Muhammad taught that some people, given wealth more than others, would through donation be able to ascend to higher awards in heaven than the impoverished could ever hope to attain, for no other reason than that God had favored them, arbitrarily, with wealth. While admittedly unjust, Muhammad concluded that "This is Allah's Grace which He gives to whom He wishes".^[5] Similarly it is traditionally held that women are permanently disadvantaged in their ability to perform good deeds because they have been 'cursed' with menstruation, due to Eve's transgression, and are thus unable to pray as much in their lives as men (in Islam, menstruating persons are prohibited from prayer, which is the most important and most deed-rewarding Islamic ritual).^[6] This latter idea, that women are religiously disabled due to menstruation is explicitly stated in the relevant scriptures and does not refer only to the women present in Muhammad's audience at the time. This reinforces the traditional understanding that Muhammad was referring to all women in all times and places, as that comment could not possibly have been confined to his temporal audience (and is not held to be, as Islamic law has always prohibited menstruating women from praying).

It has also been pointed out by traditional authorities and critics alike that the same scriptural quotations also record Muhammad saying that "The majority of the dwellers of Hellfire are Women." This cannot possible be referring to a limited group of women, unless that group of women were larger than all the women who have ever existed outside of it throughout history. Consequently, virtually all traditional authorities agree that this doctrinal proclamation is a general description of all women rather than of a very limited group of historical women.

Scans of male and female brains prove it was only for that group

Al-Disuqi also presents a second argument to buttress her conclusion that Muhammad could not possible have been referring to all women. This argument, while plausible to many Islamic authorities, has had absolutely no purchase outside of Islam. Al-Disuqi argues that because science has proven that many women are even more intelligent than men, Muhammad could not possibly have meant otherwise by his statement. This argument assumes that Muhammad must have been correct in his scientific statements and that therefore they must be interpreted so as to coincided with incontestable modern scientific fact. The form of this argument is similar to those of many modern Islamic scholars who advance the idea that the Quran's scientific statements are sound (see Scientific Miracles in the Quran). The alternative possibility, that modern science is at odds with Islamic scripture and thus proves it to be incorrect, is not considered here.

Non-Muslim participants in this discussion hold a view better represented by Al-Disuqi's subsequent statement that if Muhammad meant by his statement that all women were unintelligent, he must have been mistaken ("That argument," al-Disuqi proclaims, "is a failure."). Al-Disuqi concludes that Muhammad could not have failed in this manner and thus that he must have meant something else. Non-Muslim participants in this discussion simply conclude, rather, that Muhammad being a man living in the deeply patriarchy society of 7th-century Arabian tribesmen, could easily have been mistaken on the matter of female intelligence, and almost certainly was.

Muhammad was using hyperbole to frighten women into donating their jewelry

Other Islamic voices attempting to reorient the traditional understanding of the relevant portions of scripture have argued that Muhammad was being exaggerative in order to convey the magnitude of his practical advice, which was simply that women, like men, should simply be pious. Here, a story narrated by Ibn Abbas is often presented as evidence of Muhammad "being playful in his use of strong terms to impress this teaching on the listeners."^[7] The scripture presented in this vein are Sahih Muslim 4:1923, Sahih Muslim 4:1924, and Sahih Muslim 4:1926.

The above scriptural quotations are sometimes presented as being descriptive of the same incident where Muhammad described women as being less intelligent and deficient in religion. Put together, it is argued that these hadiths show that Muhammad was simply calling women deficient in intelligence and religion in order to frighten them into donating their jewelry and that he did not intend those statements as other than exaggerative motivational rhetoric. Critics and traditional authorities have pointed out, however, that there is no particular reason to assume that the two sets of hadith describe the same incident, as Muhammad could well have exhorted women to generosity after prayers on two separate occasions, and that even if the two sets of hadith are accepted as describing the same incident, this does not change much.

It has also been pointed out that if the statement of women making up the majority of Hellfire was merely exaggerative rhetoric intended to frighten the women into giving up their jewelry, this does not explain the comments made by Muhammad about women's intelligence. While one might argue that the women would respond to the idea of their religious disability by performing more religious acts, in this case charity, on the spot, it is not at all clear how their intelligence could be relevant in this context.

Finally, the very idea of Muhammad making exaggerative rhetorical comments on matters of theology is considered deeply problematic by traditional Islamic theologians for a number of reasons. Foremost amongst these is that in all matters theological, Muhammad's word is taken to be final, as no one else is qualified to comment on these topics. Consequently, if one theological proclamation made by Muhammad is taken as rhetorical, then all his proclamations of this kind are suspect, and this cannot be acceptable to a Sunni orthodoxy which relies on literal readings of all scripture. The problem here emerges that if the comment on Hell's inhabitants was fundamentally fictitious, then, from a theological standpoint, Hell itself could be too.

Deficiency is only about giving financial testimony

Some others have argued that while Muhammad did say that women were less intelligent than men, he only meant this in the very limited sense of their being less intelligent with respect to financial transactions. Islamic modernists and feminists have added to this reduction of scope the statement's time-bound nature, arguing that not only was the claim limited to women's intelligence with respect to financial dealings, but that that limitation in their intelligence was itself limited to the premodern times where one could expect that women, being home-bound for the most part, had less experience dealing with sums of money. It is important to note that this latter argument presented by modernist and feminist voices in Islam has been wholeheartedly rejected by mainstream Islamic authorities. This is because in declaring the legal disability of women to be time-bound, the entirety of the Sharia is made susceptible to revision under changing circumstances. Sunni orthodoxy is vehemently opposed to such thorough-going modern revisionism, since it deems the Sharia to be eternal, perfect, and unchanging, and thus does not consider this modernist and feminist perspective to have any theological legitimacy.

While non-Muslim participants in this discussion have welcomed these otherwise incredible revisionist perspectives for humanitarian reasons, the interpretation the revisionists rely on have strained credulity. The biggest problem facing these new interpretations is that Quran 2:282 itself gives a reason for why two women testifiers are required in lieu of one. The verse states that the reason for this requirement is so that if one woman forgets something, the other may remind her. Such a stipulation is, by contrast, not made for male testifiers, and the implication is that women are more likely to forget. This, it appears, is what Muhammad is alluding to when he links women's deficiency in intelligence to their legal disability rather than lack of familiarity. What results, leaving little room for interpretive maneuvers, is that the hadith about women's deficiency in intelligence directly cites the verse about their legal disability, and the verse about women's legal disability directly cites the idea that women are somehow mentally deficient.

Also important is the fact that classical authorities did not usually interpret Quran 2:282 as limiting women's legal disability as testifiers to financial transactions only. While the verse gives a particular example of a case where two women are required in lieu of one, the hadith on women's intelligence sees Muhammad generalizing this disability to all legal contexts. While classical authorities typically made exceptions for accepting the testimony of women in cases relating directly to women, such as those involving facts of menstruation, pregnancy, and the like, the common assumption was that, notwithstanding these exceptions, two women would be required to testify in the place of one man. Modern Islamic voices, including most modernist and many traditionalist figures, have only very recently shifted heavily in favor of restricting women's legal disability to financial cases alone. While this development has been welcomed for its humanitarian qualities, it cannot be said to alter historical facts about the Islamic tradition. What remains the case is that, for the longest time, Islamic authorities interpreted Muhammad's restriction on female testimony as being a general one with few exceptions, and that they held, without apology, that the reason for this restriction was, in Muhammad's own words, "the deficiency in her intelligence."

Muhammad was joking

This is one of the most bizarre claims we've come across regarding these ahadith. When asked for evidence, the claimant is unable to do so. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence in the ahadith or elsewhere that this was an 'in joke' between Muhammad and these women.

Muhammad also backs up these "jokes" with reference to the Qur'an, which he'd obviously take very seriously as the alleged prophet.

Further Evidence

Al-Tabari's Tarikh

In the discussion thus far we have presented Sahih ahadith attributed to Muhammad and have demonstrated each hadith was intended to be applied to all women for all time. We have seen Muslims attempt to explain away this assertion and argue that the ahadith applied only to certain women or particular situations, and did not apply to all women for all time. Which is the truth? What is the original source of Muhammad's view of women; where did it originate from?

Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari is recognized as one of the greatest of all Islamic scholars. He not only wrote one of the most authoritative Tafsir (commentary of the Qur'an) but also wrote a history of the world (tarikh) from the Islamic worldview. Published in English as The History of al-Tabari (SUNY Press, NY) in 39 volumes, this work presents world history from the creation account up until al-Tabari's death. When we consult al-Tabari's tarikh we find the source of Muhammad's view of women.

When God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden, they were told to not eat of a certain tree. Eve was tempted by Iblis (Satan) to eat of the tree, and she then gave some to Adam to eat also. Adam and Eve try to flee from God because of shame after their private parts were exposed. From this act of disobedience of Eve came God's curse on women.

In a lecture delivered by Saudi cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan, which aired on Al-Majd TV (June 11, 2007), he responds to the criticism made by 'enemies' of Islam against Muhammad's "women are deficient" statement by confirming the account found in Tabari:

Qur'an 43:18

It should be noted that some modern Muslim scholars interpret 43:18 as a reference to female pagan idols or that Allah is still referring to the attitude of the pagans towards women.^[8] However, the next verse (43:19) uses the same pattern - a statement of what the pagans believed followed by an interrogative alif (translated "What!") and then Allah's rebuttal ("did they witness their creation?"). Thus it seems more likely that in 43:18 Allah is making what he thinks is a factual counter-argument rather than using what he believes is another false notion of the pagans to contradict their belief in daughters of Allah.

Conclusion

The meaning of these ahadith is very clear. Prophet Muhammad "blanketed" a statement over every single woman who has ever and will ever live. Despite many creative ways to explain away the meaning and implications of these ahadith, the actual evidence cannot be denied. Muhammad clearly said that women are deficient in intelligence because, in Islam, the value of their testimony is equal to that of half a man. If the Qur'an is a book for all people for all time, then that mandate stands; thus Muhammad was referring to all women in general; and not just a specific group of women.

Further thoughts on these ahadith

This set of hadiths clearly show Muhammad's desire to control and make women subservient to him. Look at the three reasons that Muhammad lists for women being in Allah's Hell:

1. Deficient in Intelligence: The Qur'an was 'revealed' by Muhammad on behalf of his imaginary deity, Allah; thus Muhammad himself made the requirement that the testimony of two women is equal to a man. He then goes on to tell women that they will most likely end up in hell; because their intellectual deficiency, which he defined and imposed 'safeguards' against. No evidence; just "I said so!" What better way to belittle women than to continually remind them that they are 'stupid'.

2. Deficient in Religion: Again, Muhammad himself 'revealed' the entirety of Islam; its rules, regulations and requirements, rewards etc.. What better way to keep women down? Tell them your works-based religion, that they cannot perform any of these good works (praying, fasting etc..) when they are menstruating. This keeps them in a state of fear, because they have to make up for the days they were unable to be 'pious'; making them more submissive to Islam then men. Then you get Muhammad who comes along, after making this silly rule about menstruation; and tells women that most of them will end up in hell because of it. In essence, he's saying that in his religion, women will end up in hell simply for being born female.

3. Ungrateful to their Husbands: Again, Muhammad wanted his wives; and all Muslim women within his reach (in case he wanted to marry them) to be as submissive to their husbands as possible. He scares them with threats of hellfire to make them more submissive, and fearful of Allah; thereby keeping women under the thumb of their husbands. As a result, to this day, Muslim women, and women in general, are thought of by Muslims as intellectually inferior to themselves. Perhaps this is why Muslim women especially are trying to twist the meaning of these ahadith and narrow down the testimony requirement in Quran 2:282; its either that or admit Muhammad was wrong.

See Also

• Creation - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Creation

Translations

• A version of this page is also available in the following languages: Bulgarian, Italian. For additional languages, see the sidebar on the left.

External Links

• Muslim Cleric Presents "Scientific" Proof that Women Cannot Talk and Remember Simultaneously (video)
• Quran 2:282, Why does Allah mandate this Requirement? - FFI Forum discussion with a Muslim regarding why two women are required to give testimony in the absence of one Man. "Just a Woman" (the Muslim) continually tries to separate the ahadith from the Qur'an verse in order to 'explain' them separately

References