Continuing on with the originally unplanned, now planned tradition…We hear so much about women in the Middle East and what role they play in regards to men. The media fills our heads with horrific stories of women who are persecuted, even killed because they simply try to get something like an education. It’s easy and unfortunately a common mistake to assume that all people in the Middle East fit this negative view of what we see in the media. I personally believe that people should never take what is on television, especially the news, for the 100% truth.

In our text, Strayer explains the Quran in regards to women rather simply…“At the level of spiritual life, the Quran was quite clear and explicit: men and women were equal” (314). Now, if we were to close the book after that one sentence, we might have an inaccurate view of women and their roles according to the Quran. Keep in mind the above statement addressed only the spiritual role of women, “…in social terms, and especially within marriage, the Quran, like the written texts of almost all civilizations, viewed women as inferior and subordinate” (314)….a somewhat disturbing quote straight from the Quran is as follows: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them” (314). This is to say the least, a disturbing command to ask of the male followers and an even more disturbing demand to make of the female followers.

In the Quran’s defense, the Quran provided a mixture of many rights for BOTH men and women…“The earlier practice of female infanticide, for example was forbidden. Women were given control over their own property, particularly their dowries, and were granted rights of inheritance, but at half the right of their male counterparts. Marriage was considered a contract between consenting parties, thus making marriage capture illegitimate” (315). Clearly there were improvements taking place, but it hasn’t even gotten to the best part yet… “Within marriage, women were expected to enjoy sexual satisfaction and could sue for divorce if they had not had sexual relations for more than four months” (315).

For every improvement in the case of roles of women advancing there seems to always be something put in place that makes the last improvement rather invalid, “Divorce was thus possible for both parties, although it was far more readily available for men. The practice of taking multiple husbands, which operated in some pre-Islamic Arab tribes, was prohibited, while polygamy (the practice of having multiple wives) was permitted, though more clearly regulated than before. Men were limited to four wives and required to treat each of them equally. [Yeah right!!] The difficulty of doing so has been interpreted by as some virtually requiring monogamy. [Duh] Men were, however, permitted to have sexual relations with consenting female slaves, but any children born of those unions were free, as was the mother once her owner dies. Furthermore, men were strongly encouraged to marry orphans, widows and, slaves” (315).

It gets much worse…“Other signs of a tightening patriarchy –such as ‘honor killing’ of women by their male relatives for violating sexual taboos and, in some places, clitorectomy (female circumcision) – likewise deprived from local cultures, with no sanction in the Quran or Islamic Law. Where they were practiced, such customs often came to be seen as Islamic, but they were certainly not limited to the Islamic world. In many cultures, concern with family honor, linked to women’s sexuality, dictated by harsh punishments for women who violated sexual taboos” (316). When learning about this I couldn’t help but wonder, why not men? Is there such a place where men who abuse sex (i.e. rape, molestation etc) …can they be sexually mutilated as well? If so, let’s send all the men in the prisons guilty of these crimes there :o) If a person abuses a gun, they legally are not allowed to have a firearm…now if a man uses his…as a weapon…should he not lose the privilege as well?