Perhaps the discovery of consciousness will begin with a simple assumption like: Humans are self-aware; animals are not. Although at first this seems to be valid, it will be very hard to support it with examples. Nobody ever saw a monkey crying and looking at mirror while thinking about its self-origin; or a fish committing suicide because of something it did; a snake becoming depressed, or a bird fearing God. However, just because we cannot see such things does not mean that they do not exist. Moreover, we hardly see such behavior among people. Perhaps they will say that self-awareness is a condition of the human brain and soul that lasts for a few seconds, during which people experience their own consciousness and thus realize their place in the universe, that death is inevitable, that they are responsible for their actions, or, in principle, that their existence has no meaning if they do not invent one.

Such statements, which seem dull to today’s freshman philosophy students, will be welcomed with great enthusiasm in the scientific community. Although nobody can argue for the above human-animal assumption, empiricism, which always has been biology’s main path, will cause researchers to compare the differences between animal and human brains, cell molecules, neural connections, and all other aspects.

It seems almost certain that the faculties of consciousness controlled by our souls will remain completely unknown to us until the end of time. However, the materialistic part of self-consciousness probably will turn out to be a group of cells connected to each other in a very special way, hopefully in a localized area of the brain. When this discovery is made with certain electrodes or other receptors, maybe we will be able to observe our free will’s decision-making process. In fact, although our free will and self-awareness are somewhat related, it is easier to trace the free will. It will really be something when an article relates that a scientist will ask a human subject to put a knife in his hand without reason. He might do it, but a monkey would never deliberately hurt himself. It is quite possible that some form of communication between the neurons making up the consciousness will occur when the free will is deciding what to do.

Transplanting the consciousness

Once the group of neurons that make up self-awareness are determined, work will start on clinical trials to learn how to transplant consciousness (c). Since c and memory are two different things, it will be argued that, in principle, it is possible to transplant c from a dead person to another and thereby increase the recipient’s quantity of self-awareness. It is almost trivial that one’s memory is also one’s self. A person begins with no memories, acquires them while alive, begins losing them as death approaches, and then loses all of them through death.Only a deep perception of these memories by c can give a person a view and idea of the world. Given this, it follows that a person with more c will understand life and the world better, and will find more accurate solutions to problems regarding existence. Obviously, this person would need a certain memory that the c can work on”in other words, education. In summary, with c-transplantation studies, humanity will be able to produce individuals that can perceive the world from a higher perspective.

When c-transplantation surgeries are considered safe and that patients start seeing the world from a very different angle, most likely the organization that holds the rights to and carries out c-transplantation operations will become the richest medical company on Earth. Who would not want to be more intelligent, to lie down a normal person and stand up an ubermensch? There might even be government-funded research projects designed to see if more c will allow people to answer such questions as the meaning of life or the simultaneous existence of fate and free-will. This c-trade will make its founders rich, but only for a very short time.

Sadly, one of the fastest financial growth curves in history will end unexpectedly and very rapidly. The idea that a person with more self-awareness can understand life and the world better will still be valid, but after a couple of years people will not want it. This might be hard to 

believe, for we have never been given such a choice. Consider this: Do we really want to live our own self-awareness now? Or is it that whenever our c finds us alone thinking about life, the universe, God, death, and so on, we run away from it like we saw a beast? Even though this makes us a lesser human being, do we really care about all that or do we just want to forget?

Remember the adventure of European philosophy, in which the Middle Age’s ignorance was disrupted by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment’s philosophical proceedings. Moreover, advances in science and positivism have augmented the self-awareness of intellectuals and of society in general. However, at the height of this awareness, we see the emergence of a pessimistic worldview, modern philosophy, and even ignorance”an intentional escape from thinking in the shape of postmodernism. The story of c-trade will closely resemble that of philosophy: Stocks will lose their value in a single day, and nobody will want any more self-awareness than they already have.

However, one day, when everybody has forgotten about c-trade, a person will emerge and lead humanity to everlasting happiness. This person will first perform a c-transplantation surgery on a living person to remove the c as if it were a tumor that does not kill but sometimes gives unbearable pain. And he will not transplant that c to someone else, but just throw it away.

Collective responsibility

But just acknowledging this shared responsibility is not enough. Frequently, the real problem is group inaction, for harm can be prevented if enough people form a group to prevent it. Collective responsibility often can be ascribed to those people who have the ability to form such groups but do not do so. To the extent that this is the case, they are collectively responsible for their collective inaction.

Members of the dominant Western culture may consider it overly severe to assert that all of us are collectively responsible for our failure to do something about the world’s many problems. While not saying that people who do not form groups are guilty due to their inaction, I do feel that our inaction should provoke a sense of shame within us.

Goodin describes his approach as putting consequences to the fore, meaning that consequences quickly take up the whole stage, not just its front and center. He preserves a central link between responsibility and causality, and claims to make better sense of our present practices of responsibility. Larry May sets out to expand significantly our sense of responsibility within groups. The keystone of moral responsibility here is that for who one chooses to be. Attitudes and habits, states of mind and character, roles and affiliations, and the professional, institutional, and social climates shaping our interests, perceptions, and values are reviewed even as we continue to shape them.

A welcome but difficult result is that we are responsible for failures of awareness and insensitivity, as well as unexamined habits, traits, allegiances, and identifications that predispose us to moral failure. Another result is that people should see themselves as responsible for certain harmful events occurring within their communities, even if they are not direct participants or cannot prevent them. We are”and should feel”accountable for tolerating our own morally flawed character, contributing to a morally irresponsible attitudinal climate, or failing to reckon adequately with our institutional roles. These enriched bases of responsibility are not intended as new bases for subjecting people to punishment. I suggest that shame and taint, not just guilt, are appropriate individual reactions to expanded responsibility.

My concern is the collectivities, attitudinal climates, and expectation of groups that shape what people think is up to them and what they become used to ignoring. This has implications for all people who function within institutions where the most significant outcomes are the work of many minds and hands. A group’s responsibility is a fundamental moral issue. Therefore, groups are responsible for events and should be held responsible for them.

Shared responsibility

People should see themselves as sharing responsibility for the harm experienced by their communities far more often than they do. There is a distinction between shared responsibility and collective responsibility. Collective responsibility applies to a group as such (not necessarily to individual members), whereas shared responsibility applies to individuals within groups because of their membership relation with the group. We live in a world of groups. Groups affect our daily life, attitudes, and character, and greatly increase our power to act. Individuals receive great benefits from group membership. Those increased benefits and power should come with increased responsibility. Yet, although groups cause more and greater harm than individuals and have a greater capacity to correct large-scale social problems, individuals typically identify less with harm caused by groups and less often assume responsibility for them.

People share responsibility for harm done by groups, including those that result from omission. More harm occurs collectively than individually, and yet people take less responsibility for it for two reasons: Groups break problems into pieces, responsibility gets diffused, and groups allow individuals to assume that someone else will”or at least could”act. An expanded notion of moral negligence, the idea that since individuals within groups and the group’s structure and policies influence one another, and since group membership structures its members’ values and tends to desensitize them, individual members should be aware of this and responsible for reducing the risk of harm perpetrated by their group. Since there is a duty to act, the failure to do so may constitute negligence. This makes group members responsible for group values and, derivatively, for whatever harm the group does.

Shared responsibility is particularly appropriate for the value transformations that occur within groups. Since people affect one another’s conduct more, and attitudes are more closely shared, people should feel a heightened sense of responsibility to offset any risks associated with misconduct, including negligent omission or inaction. Of course, there is always the problem of defining the scope of negligence. This problem can be handled by using a reasonable person standard to ascertain what our roles would commit us to. We are not negatively responsible for all of the world’s failures, but only what a reasonable group of fellow citizens would expect of someone in our circumstances. Recognizing negative responsibility, including responsibility for omis-sions that allow an unreasonable risk of group harm, helps people lead lives that are more integrated with their moral values, because that involves both acts and omissions. To be in harmony with ourselves, we need to integrate principles with behavior that promotes moral integrity.

Conclusion

Shared responsibility, by focusing the issues of responsibility in a different light, provides us with the beginning of an account of how people, as moral agents, are connected to and function within groups and institutions. This analysis also provides a picture of the nature of informal groups and social relations. Most human relations influence the daily life, attitudes, assumptions, aspirations, and acts of individuals everywhere, such as in voluntary associations. We should remember the team’s perception of the Challenger space shuttle disaster: It is time to take your engineer’s cap off and put on your manager’s cap.1 An aggregate approach or something like it is necessary here, making shared and vicarious responsibility particularly appropriate. 

Footnote

1. Amy Gutnam and Dennis Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997), 189.

References

• Goodin, Robert E. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Gutnam, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997.
• May, Larry. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Thampson, Dennis E. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Jalal: Let me begin first. Basing myself on the Islamic viewpoint, I argue that in an Islamic political regime, sovereignty can belong only to God. However, given that democracy means popular sovereignty, democracy is anti-Islamic.

Jamal: Your argument is based on your reductionist worldview. There is only right or wrong for you. Your world is black and white, and has no room for any gray area. Real life is fuzzier than your rigid opinions.

Contrary to your claim, God’s ontological sovereignty and the people’s political sovereignty are not contradictory. I believe that God, in His capacity as the ultimate Creator, created everything. Therefore, God is sovereign in the universe.

However, His creation in the material universe is different from His creation in social life. He has given each person the freedom of choice and free will; no other member or part of creation has these abilities. Given this, God can create something in social life even though it does not seem appropriate. For instance, He creates heroin and creates the people’s actions when they use it. However, God does not like the people to use it. In other words, He orders them not to use it but does not force them not to use it. God provides the people with free will and thereby makes them responsible for own decisions.

So, God creates whatever happens. Therefore, electing a leader is ontologically a creation of God and cannot contradict His sovereignty, although we cannot know whether this is an appropriate election in His sight.

Jalal: I still think that any popular vote is incompatible with Islam. Think about the designations of Prophethood. God is the ultimate decision-maker Who chooses the Prophets, regardless of what the people think.

Jamal: Perfect example! Of course, the people cannot elect a Prophet through voting, because by definition a Prophet is God’s messenger. Political leaders, however, are the people’s representatives, not God’s. Also, the Qur’an states that no Prophet will come after Prophet Muhammad. Thus, the people are free to elect their own leaders.

Furthermore, democracy based on popular sovereignty is an alternative to monarchy and oligarchy, not to God’s sovereignty. Why don’t you accept that monarchical and oligarchic sovereignties also contradict His sovereignty? Can you really claim that the various royal dynasties received their right to rule from God? Similarly, are the militaristic regimes the shadow of God upon Earth? I don’t think so.

Jalal: Frankly, I never thought of that. But I’m still curious about what you would say if a man-made rule happens to contradict a Divine rule. In Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith reflect God’s commands and so are accepted as absolute truth. In a democracy, however, ideally the people have the absolute power and legitimacy to create the law.

Jamal: But there is no paradox here. First, Muslim populations normally do not support laws that contradict the Revelation. Second, the Qur’an or Hadith contain no concrete and fixed political principles. Politics deals with temporary and mundane issues, which are subject to change according to time and place. Thus, the people can pass laws that are compatible with the constant, general, and universal principles of Divine rule on one hand, and with changeable sociopolitical contexts on the other. Third, it is more likely that the sovereignty of dictators, dynasties, or oligarchies will contradict the Divine rule than the sovereignty of the people will.

Finally, democracy has different forms, such as direct and representative. In direct democracy, the people vote directly in referendums for almost every political issue. In representative democracy, however, politics is conducted by the people’s representatives. Moreover, some representative democracies (e.g., the U.S.) have a Supreme (or Constitutional) Court to restrict law-making. In sum, possible contradictions between popular sovereignty and Divine rule can be minimized by creating institutions (e.g., a representative system and a Supreme Court) that include some Divine rules as pillars of the constitution.

Jalal: You try to show that democracy is compatible with Islam

Jamal: Moreover, I accept democracy as being more compatible with Islam than with non-democratic systems. The Prophet’s statement that my community will never agree upon an error reveals that the people are the source of political legitimacy. Moreover, the fact that the four Rightly Guided Caliphs were elected shows that election is a more suitable political institution for Muslims than any monarchic or oligarchic alternatives, despite the fact that such elections may not necessarily be considered purely democratic according to modern standards.

Jalal: If everything is so smooth, why did classical Islamic thinkers oppose democracy?

Jamal: First, evaluating classical thinkers by modern paradigms is an anachronism. Historical ideas need to be examined in their historical contexts. Don’t forget that until the French Revolution, monarchy was the dominant political institution. Second, many classical Islamic thinkers (e.g., al-Baqilani and al-Mawardi) generally emphasized the necessity of elections in determining a new caliph. They did not legitimize hereditary systems. Finally, the non-democratic components of classical thought are the results of historical sociopolitical contexts instead of the essence of the Islamic thought. Therefore, Islamic political thought can easily adapt, adopt, and legitimize democratic systems.

Jalal: If Islam and democracy are so compatible, why are so many Muslim countries non-democratic?

Jamal: As I have tried to demonstrate, Islam does not necessarily oppose democracy and is not the only cause of non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world. While discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim countries, one should consider such other factors as the economic, cultural, and international conditions that shape these countries’ political systems.

Second, Islam can be interpreted from different political viewpoints. While Islam encourages obedience to the rulers (4:59), it also encourages resistance. For example, the Prophet said: The best jihad is to say the truth to a tyrant’s face. Non-democratic Muslim rulers have their own interpretations of Islam, which have been shaped by their particular conditions. Therefore, their practices cannot represent Islam’s theoretical principles and essentials and its relations with democracy.

Jalal: Sounds interesting. Are you saying that democracy is the only political system compatible with Islam?

Jamal: No. Muslims may have changeable opinions, although Islam has absolute and universal values. The essentials of Islam are unchangeable and eternal truths. Political ideas, however, depend upon circumstances. Thus they are not absolute and change along with the sociopolitical and economic transformations. For that reason, Muslims could accept multiple political arguments. At this point in time, I personally prefer democracy to other political systems. However, if another system proves to serve humanity better, I might favor that one.

Little did the famous Muslim geographer Ibn Battuta know that about 22 years after his historic visit to China, the Mongol Dynasty (called the Yuan Dynasty in China) would be overthrown. The Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) would begin, and a Muslim boy would help a Chinese prince. That prince would become the emperor, and the boy would grow up to be the Admiral of the Chinese Fleet.

His name… Zheng He. The ships that he would sail throughout the Indian Ocean would retrace some of the same routes taken by Ibn Battuta, but he would be in huge boats called junks. He would go to East Africa, Makkah, the Persian Gulf, and throughout the Indian Ocean.

Speak of the world’s first navigators, and the names Christopher Columbus or Vasco da Gama flash through a Western mind. The remarkable feats of a Chinese Muslim who helped transform China into the region’s, and perhaps the world’s, superpower of his time, Zheng He’s (1371-1433) adventures are little known and were accomplished decades before those of the two European adventurers.

In 1405, Zheng was chosen to lead the biggest naval expedition in history up to that time. Over the next 28 years (1405-33), he commanded seven fleets that visited 37 countries throughout Southeast Asia to faraway Africa and Arabia. In those years, China had by far the biggest ships of the time. In 1420, the Ming navy dwarfed the combined navies of Europe.

Ma He, as he was originally known, was born in 1371 to a poor ethnic Hui (Chinese Muslim) family in Yunnan province, southwest China. His grandfather and father once made an overland pilgrimage to Makkah. Their travels contributed much to young Ma’s education. He grew up speaking Arabic and Chinese, learning much about the world to the west and its geography and customs.

Recruited as a promising servant for the Imperial household at the age of ten, two years later Ma was assigned to the retinue of Duke Yan, who would later usurp the throne as Emperor Yong Le. Ma accompanied the Duke on a series of successful military campaigns and played a crucial role in the capture of Nanjing, then the capital. As a result, he was awarded supreme command of the Imperial Household Agency and was given the surname Zheng.

Emperor Yong Le tried to boost his damaged prestige as a usurper by displaying China’s might abroad, sending spectacular fleets on great voyages, and bringing foreign ambassadors to his court. He also put foreign trade under a strict Imperial monopoly by taking control away from overseas Chinese merchants. Command of the fleet was given to his favorite, Zheng He, an impressive figure said to be over eight feet tall.

A great fleet of large ships, with nine masts and manned by 500 men, each set sail in July 1405, half a century before Columbus’ voyage to America. There were great treasure ships over 300 feet long and 150 feet wide, the biggest being 440 feet long and 186 feet across, capable of carrying 1,000 passengers. Most of the ships were built at the Dragon Bay shipyard near Nanjing, the remains of which can still be seen today.

Zheng He’s first fleet included 27,870 men on 317 ships, including sailors, clerks, interpreters, soldiers, artisans, medical men, and meteorologists. On board were large quantities of cargo, including silk goods, porcelain, gold and silverware, copper utensils, iron implements, and cotton goods. The fleet sailed along China’s coast to Champa close to Vietnam and, after crossing the South China Sea, visited Java and Sumatra and then reached Sri Lanka by passing through the Strait of Malacca. On the way back, it sailed along the west coast of India and returned home in 1407. Envoys from Calicut in India and several countries in Asia and the Middle East also boarded the ships to pay visits to China. Zheng He’s second and third voyages, taken shortly after, followed roughly the same route.

In the fall of 1413, Zheng He set out with 30,000 men for Arabia on his fourth and most ambitious voyage. From Hormuz, he sailed around the Arabian boot to Aden at the mouth of the Red Sea. The arrival of the fleet caused a sensation in the region, and 19 countries sent ambassadors to board Zheng He’s ships with gifts for Emperor Yong Le.

In 1417, after two years in Nanjing and touring other cities, the foreign envoys were escorted home by Zheng He. On this trip, he sailed down the east coast of Africa, stopping at Mogadishu, Matindi, Mombassa, and Zanzibar. He might have reached Mozambique. The sixth voyage, in 1421, also went to the African coast.

Emperor Yong Le died in 1424, shortly after Zheng He’s return. Yet, in 1430 the admiral was sent on a final seventh voyage. Now 60 years old, Zheng He revisited the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and Africa, and died in 1433on his way back while in India.

Zheng He’s junks

Zheng He’s flag treasure ship was 400 feet long ” much larger than Columbus’. In this drawing, the two flagships are superimposed to give a clear idea of the relative size of these two ships. Columbus’ ship the St. Maria was only 85 feet long, while Zheng He’s flag ship was an astonishing 400 feet long.

Imagine six centuries ago, a mighty armada of Zheng He’s ships crossing the China Sea, then venturing west to Sri Lanka, Arabia, and East Africa. The fleet consisted of giant nine-masted junks, escorted by dozens of supply ships, water tankers, transports for cavalry horses, and patrol boats. The armada’s crew totaled more than 27,000 sailors and soldiers.

Loaded with Chinese silk and porcelain, the junks visited ports around the Indian Ocean. Here, Arab and African merchants exchanged the spices, ivory, medicines, rare woods, and pearls so eagerly sought by the Chinese imperial court.

Seven times, from 1405 to 1433, the treasure fleets set off for the unknown. These seven great expeditions brought a vast web of trading links ” from Taiwan to the Persian Gulf ” under Zheng He’s imperial control. This took place half a century before the first Europeans, rounding the tip of Africa in frail Portuguese caravels, discovered the Indian Ocean.

His humble tomb

Zheng He (1371-1433), or Cheng Ho, is arguably China’s most famous navigator. Starting from the beginning of the fifteenth century, he set out seven times. For 28 years, he traveled more than 50,000 km and visited over 37 countries, including Singapore. Zheng He died in the tenth year Ming emperor Xuande’s (1433) reign, and was buried in the southern outskirts of Bull’s Head Hill (Niushou) in Nanjing.

In 1983, during the 580th anniversary of Zheng He’s voyage, his tomb was restored. The new tomb was built on the site of the original tomb and reconstructed according to the customs of Islamic teachings.

At the entrance to the tomb is a Ming-style structure, which houses the memorial hall. Inside are paintings of the man himself and his navigation maps. To get to the tomb, there are newly laid stone platforms and steps. The stairway consists of 28 stone steps divided into four sections, with each section having seven steps. This represents Zheng He’s seven journeys to the west. Inscribed on top of the tomb are the Arabic words Allahu Akbar (God is Great). 

How Muslims see Jesus

All Muslims are required to believe in God’s Prophets and Messengers. As we read in Qur’an 2:136: Say, O Muslims: We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes; that given to Moses and Jesus; and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between them, and we submit to God (in Islam). Qur’an 3:84 and 4:163 convey the same idea.

Muslims believe that 124,000 or 224,000 Prophets have been sent to humanity. The Qur’an mentions 28 of them by name. In this context, it sometimes points out those Prophets who possess a great importance for humanity. One of these is Jesus. His relationship with the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically, as is what such others as Zechariah and John endured from their communities: We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers. We gave Jesus son of Mary clear (signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that whenever a Messenger comes to you with (a message) that you dislike, you become puffed up with pride? You call some imposters and kill others (2:87). This matter is also discussed in 2:253.

His birth, life, and death

Of the few differences between the core beliefs of Islam and Christianity, the nature of Jesus seems to be the most serious one. Below are several Qur’anic passages in full.

Mention Mary in the Book, when she drew aside from her family to an eastern place. She took a veil (to screen herself) from them. We sent Our spirit to her in the form of a well-formed man. She said: I seek refuge in the Beneficent God, if you guard (against evil). He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord. I give to you a pure son. She asked: How can I have a son, as no man has touched me and I have been chaste? He said: Even so. Your Lord says: It is easy for Me, and that We may make him a sign to humanity and a mercy from Us. It is a matter decreed.’ So she conceived him and withdrew to a remote place. The throes (of childbirth) compelled her to go to the trunk of a palm tree. She exclaimed: If only I had died before this and been forgotten! (The child) called out to her from beneath her: Do not grieve, for your Lord has caused a stream to flow beneath you. Shake the trunk of the palm tree, and it will drop fresh ripe dates on you. So eat and drink and refresh the eye. If you see anyone, say: I’ve vowed a fast to the Beneficent God and will speak to nobody today.’ She came to her people with him, carrying him. They said: O Mary, you have done something strange. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a bad man and your mother was not unchaste. But she pointed to him. They asked: How should we speak to a child in the cradle? He (Jesus) replied: I am a servant of God, Who has given me the Book and made me a Prophet. He has made me blessed wherever I may be, has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live, and to be dutiful toward my mother. He has not made me insolent, unblessed. Peace on me on the day I was born, on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life. Such is Jesus, son of Mary. (This is) the saying of truth about which they dispute. (19:16-36).

And when the angels said: O Mary, God has chosen and purified you, and chosen you above all women. O Mary, obey your Lord, humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow. This news concerns matters of the Unseen that We reveal to you (O Muhammad). You were not with them when they cast pens (to decide) which one would be responsible for Mary, nor were you there when they argued among themselves. When the angels said: O Mary, God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those made near (to God). He shall speak to the people while in the cradle and when of old age, and (shall be) one of the good ones. She exclaimed: My Lord! No man has touched me, so how will I give birth to a son? He said: Even so, God creates what He pleases. When He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, be’ and it is. He will teach him the Book, the wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospels. (He will make him) an apostle to the Children of Israel. (Jesus will tell them:) I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. Out of dust I make for you a figure in the form of a bird. I breathe into it and, by God’s Will it becomes a bird. I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with God Will. I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses. There is a sign in this for you, if you are believers. I verify that which is before me of the Torah and allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so be careful of (your duty to) God and obey me. God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him. This is the right path. But when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he asked: Who will help me in God’s way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of God. We believe in God and bear witness that we submit. Our Lord, we believe in what You have revealed and follow the apostle, so write us among those who bear witness. They planned and God planned, and God is the best planner. When God said: O Jesus, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on Earth), cause you to ascend to Me, purify you of those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you victorious over those who do not believe until the Day of Resurrection. You will return to Me, and I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. As for the non-believers, I will chastise them severely in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers. As for those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards. God does not love the unjust. We recite this to you (O Muhammad) of the communications and the wise reminder. The likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust and then said Be’ and he was. (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers. But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, say: Let’s call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, and our near people and your near people, and pray earnestly that God curse the liars. This is the true explanation, and there is no god but God. Most surely God is Mighty, Wise (3:42-62).

Because they broke their covenant, rejected God’s communications, wrongfully killed the Prophets, and said: Our hearts are covered, God set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief. Only a few will believe. And for their unbelief and slandering Mary. And their saying: We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Apostle of God. But they neither killed or crucified him, but it appeared to them (that they had done so). Those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it but only follow a conjecture. They did not kill him, for God raised him to Himself. God is Mighty, Wise. (4:155-58)

Jesus’ true nature

The following verses show that the Bible and the Qur’an use similar terms when describing Jesus: son of Mary, the Messiah, an apostle of Allah (in which it differs from Christianity), His Word which He communicated to Mary, a spirit from Him, and a mercy from Him. For example: Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity. We breathed into (her) of Our Spirit, and she testified to the truth of her Lord’s Words and His Revelations and was one of the devout (servants) (66:12). Here are God’s tidings to Mary about her son: Behold! The angels said: O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary (3:45).

In the following verses, God tells Jesus about himself and his mission: I [Jesus] have come to you [the Children of Israel] with a sign from your Lord. Out of dust I make for you a figure in the form of a bird. I breathe into it and, by God’s Will, it becomes a bird. I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with God Will. I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses. There is a sign in this for you, if you are believers (3:48-49). See also 5:110. Significantly, the miracles of his forming a bird-like figure from dust and its coming to life by God’s Will, as well as telling people what they have in their houses, are not mentioned in the Bible. In 61:6, we also read: And remember, Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel, I am God’s Messenger (sent) to you, confirming the Torah (Law) (that came) before me. I give glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad. But when he came to them with clear signs, they said: This is clear sorcery!’ See also 5:46 and 43:63.

The following verse is also remarkable: The likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust and then said Be and he was (3:59). And lastly we have the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary is only an apostle of God and His Word that He communicated to Mary and a spirit from Him(4:171).

His resurrection

Muslims also are waiting for Jesus to return to the world. Many sayings of the Prophet indicate that Jesus must return as a king to this world before the Last Day can come. The following verse can be considered in this context: (Jesus) shall be a sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment). So have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow Me. This is a Straight Way (43:61). Another one, mentioned earlier, mentions his coming implicitly: You spoke to the people in childhood and in maturity (5:110). His speaking in both childhood and maturity is generally interpreted as in his first and second visit to this world. And lastly: Peace on me on the day I was born, on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life (19:35). 

Conclusion

In the two parts of this article, I have presented Islam’s fundamental approach to Christianity. This should be considered the main approach, as all claims are stated parallel to Qur’anic verses. Based on my studies of comparative religion, I conclude that the Qur’an and the Bible have many parallel concepts.

How do we answer the following valid questions: What does the Qur’an offer? Can Islam and Christianity be combined to defeat unbelief and our current social problems? I do not mean that these two religions should be mixed, as has happened in the past, but that we should accept their common principles. In other words, we should use their combined power to oppose enmity, intolerance, and the lack of dialogue, love, and hope in our personal lives and society; the crushing of civilizations and the effects of materialism on our communities, religions, cultures, and young people; and the lack of faith, immorality, and other social problems.

The Qur’an suggests several things to Muslims and Christians. For example, it tells the Muslims: Do not dispute with the People of the Book except by what is best, except for those who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, our God and your God is One, and we submit to Him (29:46); Those to whom We have given the Book rejoice in what has been revealed to you. Some confederates deny part of it. Say: I am only commanded to serve God and not associate anything with Him. I invite (you) to Him, and to Him is my return (13:36); and: If they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to God and (so has) everyone who follows me. Ask those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? If they submit, they are following the right way, If they turn back, you are responsible only for delivering the message. God sees the servants (3:20).

The Qur’an expects the Christians to accept Muhammad’s messengership and the Qur’an. This does not mean that they must convert to Islam, for all that is required is acceptance, just as Muslims accept Jesus and the Book given to him. For example: O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits in your religion or speak (lies) against God. Rather, (speak) the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is only God’s apostle and His Word that He communicated to Mary and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His apostles. Do not say three, but desist, for that is better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from His Glory to have a son. Whatever is in the heavens and in Earth is His. God is sufficient for a Protector (4:171). See also 19:35-36.

The next verse talks to those who believe in the previous Books: O believers, be careful of (your duty to) God and believe in His Apostle. He will give you two portions of His mercy, make for you a light with which you will walk, and forgive you. God is Forgiving, Merciful (57:28). We can read two portions of His mercy as being a reward for both of the Prophets that they follow.

Other verses ask and require them to reconsider the signs in their Books: O People of the Book, why don’t you believe in the communications of God while you witness (them)? (3:70) and: Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures), the Law (Torah) and the Gospels, for He commands them (to do) what is just and forbids them (to do) what is evil. He allows them to do what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure). He releases them from their heavy burdens and the yokes that are upon them. These are the people who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the Light sent down with him. They will prosper (7:157).

The Qur’an makes two more offers to the People of the Book. The following verse is probably the last offer, if the ones mentioned above were rejected: Say: O People of the Book, come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we will serve only God and will associate nothing with Him, and (that) some of us will not take others for lords besides God. If they turn back, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims’ (3:64). In this ultimate offer, no Prophets are mentioned. Since everything is secondary when compared to belief in God, the Qur’an shows its flexibility in all matters except serving only God, associating nothing or no one with him, and not setting up lords besides Him.

Another original offer is to establish dialogue by cooperating or gathering around Abraham’s religion: Who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely to God? He is the doer of good (to others) and follows the faith of Abraham, the upright one, whom God took as a friend (4:125). 

Suggested Reading List

• Gulen, M. Fethullah. Prophet Muhammad: Aspects of his Life, The Fountain, 2000. Gulen’s Essentials of the Islamic Faith is also a good source of related information.
• Hasan, Ahmad (trans.). Sunan Abu Dawud, book 36 (Online at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah).
• Khan, M. Muhsin (trans.). Sahih Bukhari, books 55 and 56 (Online at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah).
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. Risale-i Nur Collection: The Letters. The Nineteenth Letter: Sixteenth Sign. Konak-Izmir, Turkey: Kaynak AS, 1998. (Online at www.nur.org or www.risale-inur.com). Related topics are discussed throughout the entire collection.
• Siddiqui, Abdul Hamid (trans.). Sahih Muslim, books 30, 31, and 41 (Online at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah).

The universe is a palace, but it is such a palace that in it is a city which is being constantly shaken by destruction and reconstruction. And in the city is a country which is being continuously agitated by war and emigration. And within the country is a world which is unceasingly revolving amid death and life. But such an astonishing balance, equilibrium and equilibration prevail in the palace, city, country and world that it self-evidently proves that the transformations, incomings and outgoings apparent in these innumerable beings are being measured and weighed every moment on the scales of a Single Being Who sees and supervises the whole universe.

For if it had been otherwise, if causes had been free and unrestrained, which try to destroy the balance and overrun everything, through a single fish laying a thousand eggs and a single flower like a poppy producing twenty thousand seeds, and through the onslaught and violence of change and the elements flowing in floods, or if it had been referred to aimless, purposeless chance, anarchic blind forces, and unconscious dark Nature, the equilibrium of beings and balance of the universe would have been so utterly destroyed that within a year, indeed within a day, there would have been chaos. That is to say, the seas would have been filled with things in total disorder and confusion and would have become fetid; the atmosphere would have been poisoned with noxious gases; and as for the earth, it would have turned into a refuse-heap, slaughter-house, and swamp. The world would have suffocated.

Thus, everything from the cells of an animate body, the red and white corpuscles in the blood, the transformations of minute particles, and the mutual proportion and relation of the body’s organs, to the incomings and outgoings of the seas, the income and expenditure of springs under the earth, the birth and death of animals and plants, the destruction of autumn and the reconstruction of spring, the duties and motion of the elements and the stars, and the alternations, struggles and clashes of death and life, light and darkness, and heat and cold, are ordered and weighed with so sensitive a balance, so fine a measure, that the human mind can nowhere see any waste or futility, just as human science and philosophy see everywhere and point out the most perfect order and beautiful symmetry. Indeed, human science and philosophy are a manifestation and interpreter of that order and symmetry.

So, come and consider the balance and equilibrium of the sun and its twelve planets. Does this balance not point as clearly as the sun to the All-Glorious One Who is All-Just and All-Powerful? And especially our ship, that is, the globe of the earth, which is one of the planets; it travels an orbit of twenty-four thousand years in one year, not scattering or shaking the things stored up and stacked on its face, despite its extraordinary speed, nor throwing them off into space. If its speed had been increased or reduced just a little, it would have thrown its inhabitants off into the atmosphere, and scattered them through space. And if its balance was to be destroyed for a minute, or even a second, it would destroy the world. Indeed, it would clash with another body and doomsday would break forth.

And especially the compassionate balance on the face of the earth of the births, deaths, livelihoods, and lives of the four hundred thousand plant and animal species, it shows a single Just and Compassionate One, as clearly as light shows the sun.

And especially the members, faculties, and senses of a single of the innumerable members of those species, they are related to each other with so fine a balance and equilibrium that their balance and mutual proportion show an All-Wise and Just Maker so clearly as to be self-evident.

And especially the cells and blood-vessels in the bodies of animals, and the corpuscles in the blood and particles in the corpuscles, they have such a fine, sensitive, and wondrous balance that it self-evidently proves that they are being nurtured and administered through the balance, law, and order of a single All-Just and Wise Creator in Whose hands are the reins of all things, has the key to all things, for Whom nothing is an obstacle to anything else, and directs all things as easily as a single thing.

If someone who does not believe or deems it unlikely that the deeds of jinn and men will be weighed up on the supreme scales of justice at the Last Judgment notes carefully this vast balance which he can see in this world with his own eyes, he will surely no longer consider it unlikely.

O wasteful, prodigal.. wrongful, unjust.. dirty, unclean.. wretched man! You have not acted in accordance with the economy, cleanliness, and justice which is the principle by which the whole universe and all beings act, and are therefore in effect the object of their anger and disgust. On what do you rely that through your wrongdoing and disequilibrium, your wastefulness and uncleanliness, you make all beings angry? Yes, the universal wisdom of the universe, which is the greatest manifestation of the Divine Name of All-Wise, turns on economy and lack of waste. It commands frugality.

While the total justice in the universe proceeding from the greatest manifestation of the Name of All-Just, administers the balance of all things. And it enjoins justice on man. Mentioning the word `balance’ four times, these verses in Sura al-Rahman,

And the firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the balance (of justice); In order that you may not transgress (due) balance. So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance (55:7-9),indicate four degrees and four sorts of balance, showing its immensity and supreme importance in the universe. Yes, just as there is no wastefulness in anything, so too in nothing is there true injustice and imbalance.

And the cleanliness and purification proceeding from the Name of Most Holy cleans and makes beautiful all the beings in the universe. So long as man’s dirty hand does not interfere, there is no true uncleanliness or ugliness in anything.

So, you may understand how basic to human life are the principles of justice, frugality, and cleanliness, which are truths of the Qur’an and Islamic principles. And know how closely connected with the universe are the injunctions of the Qur’an, having spread their firm roots everywhere, and that it is impossible to destroy those truths like it is impossible to destroy the universe and change its form.

Is it at all possible that although hundreds of comprehensive truths like these three vast lights, such as mercy, grace, and preservation, require and necessitate the resurrection of the dead and the Hereafter, powerful and all-encompassing truths like mercy, favour, justice, wisdom, frugality, and cleanliness, which govern in the universe and all beings, should be transformed into unkindness, tyranny, lack of wisdom, wastefulness, uncleanliness, and futility, through there being no Hereafter and the resurrection not occurring?

God forbid, a hundred thousand times, God forbid! Would a mercy and wisdom which compassionately preserve the rights of life of a fly violate the countless rights of life of all conscious beings and the numberless rights of numberless beings, through not bringing about the resurrection? And if one may say so, would a splendid dominicality which displays infinite sensitivity and care in its mercy and compassion and justice and wisdom, and a Divine sovereignty which adorns the universe with His endless wondrous arts and bounties in order to display His perfections and make himself known and loved, permit there to be no resurrection, which would reduce to nothing the value of creatures and all their perfections, and make them denied? God forbid! An absolute beauty such as that clearly would not permit such absolute ugliness.

Yes, one who wants to deny the Hereafter must first deny all the world and all its truths. Otherwise the world together with all its truths will give him the lie with a hundred thousand tongues, proving the compounded nature of his lie. As a result the existence of the Hereafter is as definite and indubitable as the existence of this world as proven by certain evidences.

Flashes, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sozler Yayinevi
Translated by Sukran Vahide,

International Women’s Day is March 8th. In recognition of this event, we present the following article on women’s rights according to the Abrahamic traditions.

Since modern Western thought and paradigms are based on the Western cultural heritage, what is meant by religion has been the Judeo-Christian tradition. Western thinkers, Orientalists, and “Westernized” intellectuals in the Muslim world, all out of their ignorance of Islam, have tended to criticize Islam from the perspective of criticisms directed toward the Judeo-Christian tradition. What follows is of great importance, especially in correcting and clarifying this important matter from the viewpoint of women’s status in Islam.

Introduction

Do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions? Do Judaism and Christianity really offer women better treatment than Islam? What is the truth?

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one’s utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say the truth, even if those who are very close to them do not like it: Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned (6:152) and: O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor (4:135).

Throughout this research, I have striven to approach the Qur’anic ideal of speaking justly. I would like to emphasize that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the Divine origins of both. No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great Prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute, long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to humanity.

Eve’s fault?

The Judeo-Christian conception of Adam and Eve’s creation is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. However, the serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, Adam put all the blame on Eve: The woman you put here with me_she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it. Consequently, God said to Eve: I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing. With pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. He told Adam: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree …. Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

The Qur’an relates the creation account in several places. The Qur’an, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve (7:19:23) and nowhere gives even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or that she ate before he did. In other words, Eve is not a temptress, a seducer, or a deceiver. Moreover, she is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Qur’an, punishes no one for another’s faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked for and received God’s forgiveness.

Eve’s legacy

The Biblical image of Eve as a temptress has had an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate the extent of the negative impact that this has had on all of Eve’s female descendants, we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians writers.

Let’s start with the Old Testament. Looking at excerpts from what is called the “Wisdom Literature,” we find: I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare…. while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). In another part of the Jewish literature found in the Catholic Bible, we read: No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman….. Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die (Ecclesiasticus 25:19, 24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses placed upon women because of the Fall: “To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”1 Until today, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite: “Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman.” Women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for “making me according to Thy will.”(2)

The Biblical Eve has played a far larger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith, because the Christian conception of the reason for Jesus Christ’s mission on Earth stems from Eve’s disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her in sin. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which then became cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all of their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their “original sin,” God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband’s sin, the sin into which all people are born (Original Sin), and the Son of God’s death. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity.(3)

St. Tertullian was even blunter than St. Paul. While talking to his “best beloved sisters” in the faith, he said: “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”(4)

St. Augustine (d. 430) was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors when he wrote to a friend: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman…. I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) still considered women defective: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.” The renowned reformer Martin Luther (d. d. 1546) saw no benefit in women other than giving birth to as many children as possible regardless of any side effects: “If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

When we turn our attention to the Qur’an, we soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judeo-Christian one. For instance: For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise_for them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward (33:35); The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise (9:71); And their Lord answered them: “Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another” (3:195); Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed_whether man or woman_and is a believer. Such will enter the Garden of bliss (40:40); and: Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions (16:97).

It is clear that the Qur’an views the women in the same way as it does men: Both genders are God’s creatures whose sublime goal on Earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds and avoid evil, and then be judged accordingly. The Qur’an never mentions that woman is the devil’s gateway or a deceiver by nature, or that man is God’s image, for it proclaims that all men and all women are His creatures. According to the Qur’an, a woman’s role is not limited only to childbirth, for she is required to do as many good deeds as a man is required to do. The Qur’an even gives examples of ideal and upright women of the past, such as the Virgin Mary and Pharaoh’s wife, and instructs all believers, women as well as men, to follow their example: God sets forth, as an example to those who believe, Pharaoh’s wife. Behold, she said: “O my Lord, build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden. Save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those who do wrong.” And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her body of Our spirit, and she testified to the truth of her Lord’s words and Revelations and was one of the devout (66:11-13).

Shameful daughters

The Bible states: The period of the mother’s ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly: The birth of a daughter is a loss (Ecclesiasticus 22:3). In contrast, boys receive special praise: A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy (Ecclesiasticus 30:3).

Rabbis made it an obligation upon all Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children: “It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female,” “At the birth of a boy, all are joyful … at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful,” and: “When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world… When a girl comes, nothing comes.”5A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father: Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame (Ecclesiasticus 42:11), and: Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

This same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame led pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Qur’an condemned this heinous practice: When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! What an evil they decide on? (16:58-59). This sinister crime would never have ended in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Qur’an used to condemn it (16:59, 43:17, and 81:8-9). Moreover, the Qur’an makes no distinction between boys and girls, for it considers the birth of a girl, as well as the birth of a boy, to be a gift and a blessing from God. It even mentions the gift of a daughter’s birth first: To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and Earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills, and bestows male children to whomever He wills (42:49).

In order to wipe out all traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters a great reward if they would bring them up kindly: “He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and directs benevolent treatment toward them, they will be a protection for him against Hell-Fire” (Bukhari and Muslim), and: “Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers” (Muslim).

Female education

The difference between the Biblical and the Qur’anic conceptions of women extends far beyond the newly born female. Let’s compare their attitudes toward a woman trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah (the law). However, according to the Talmud, “women are exempt from the study of the Torah.” Some rabbis firmly declared: “Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women” and: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity”(6)

The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is as follows: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

One short story narrated in the Qur’an concisely sums up Islam’s view: Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband, Aws, exclaimed in a moment of anger: “You are to me as the back of my mother.” Pagan Arabs considered this to be a statement of divorce that freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not allow the wife to leave the husband’s home or marry another man. Hearing these words, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet to plead her case. The Prophet thought that she should be patient, since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with him in the hope of saving her suspended marriage. Shortly thereafter, Revelation descended and her plea was accepted. The Divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. Surat al-Mujadilah (The Women Who Argues), the Qur’an’s fifty-eighth chapter, was named after this incident: God has heard the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to God. He hears the arguments between both of you, for He hears and sees all things (58:1).

A woman in the Qur’anic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet. No one has the right to tell her to be silent, and she is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

Unclean and impure women

The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman to be unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity “infects” others, for anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day: When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening (Leviticus 15:19-23).

Due to her contaminating nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes banished so that there would be no possibility of having any contact with her. She was sent to a special house, the house of uncleanness, until her period ended.7 Furthermore, the husband of a menstruating woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her, even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite a priestly blessing in the synagogue.(8)

Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any contagious uncleanness. She lives her normal life with only one restriction: The couple cannot have sexual relations during her menstrual period. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman also is exempted from some rituals, such as the daily prayers and fasting.

Bearing witness

The Qur’an and the Bible also disagree on the issue of women bearing witness. The Qur’an instructs those believers who are engaged in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses (2:282). However, in other situations the Qur’an accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact, sometimes a woman’s testimony can invalidate that of a man. For example, if a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he must solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty. In either case, however, the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).

In early Jewish society, women were not allowed to bear witness at all,(9) for the rabbis considered this to be one of the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the section on “Eve’s legacy”).(10) In modern Israel, women are not allowed to give evidence in rabbinical courts.(11) The rabbis justify this by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Abraham’s wife Sara lied. According to the rabbis, this incident is evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. The Qur’an also narrates this account, but without any hint of Sara lying (11:69-74 and 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until the late nineteenth century.(12)

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, the Bible says that her testimony cannot be considered at all. Rather, the accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, she faces a complex and humiliating ritual that was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Numbers 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she is sentenced to death. If she is found innocent, her husband is considered innocent of any wrongdoing.

If a man marries a woman and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents have to prove her virginity to the town elders. If they cannot prove their daughter’s innocence, she is to be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep. If the parents cannot prove her innocence, the husband is to be fined only 100 silver shekels and cannot divorce her as long as he lives (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

Vows

According to the Bible, a man must fulfill any vow he makes to God and must not break his word. However, a woman’s vow is not necessarily binding, for it has to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If the father or husband do not endorse his daughter’s or wife’s vows, all of her pledges become null and void: But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand…. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself (Numbers 30:2-15).

A woman’s word is not binding per se because she is owned by her father before marriage and by her husband after marriage. Her father’s control over her was so absolute that he could, if he wished, sell her. Rabbinic literature indicates that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.” (13) This literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of the father’s control to the husband: “Betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession_the inviolable property_of the husband…” Obviously, if women are considered somebody else’s property, they cannot make any pledges of which her owner does not approve.

History shows that this Biblical instruction concerning women’s vows had negative repercussions on Judeo-Christian women until the early twentieth century. A wife in the Western world had no legal status, none of her acts had any legal value, and her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal that she had made. Women in the West, the largest heir of the Judeo-Christian legacy, were considered unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. (14)

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding upon him or her, and no one can repudiate another person’s pledge. If a man or a woman fail to keep their solemn oath, each of them has to make the proper expiation, as outlined in the Qur’an:  He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths. For expiation, feed ten indigent persons on a scale of the average for the food of your families, or clothe them, or free a slave. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths (5:89).

Male and female Companions of the Prophet would come to him independently and present their oath of allegiance to him personally. O Prophet! When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful (60:12). No man could swear the oath on his wife’s or daughter’s behalf, and no man could repudiate an oath made by any of his female relatives.

A wife’s property

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. Nevertheless, clear differences do exist with respect to the limits of male leadership. The Judeo-Christian tradition virtually extends the husband’s leadership into ownership of his wife. The Talmud describes a wife’s financial situation as follows: How can a woman have anything? Whatever is hers belongs to her husband. What is his is his and what is hers is also his…. Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband… (San. 71a, Git. 62a).

In a Jewish family, the daughter’s property was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as her dowry when she got married. This practice made a daughter an unwelcome burden to her father, for he had to raise her for years and then provide a large dowry so that she could get married. Thus, a Jewish girl was a liability instead of an asset. (15)

The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband acted as its practical owner, but could not sell it. The bride lost all control it at the moment of her marriage. While the groom had to give her a marriage gift as well, he was its practical owner as long as they were married. (16) Moreover, she was expected to work and give all of her earnings to her husband in return for his maintenance of her, which was his duty. She could regain her property only in the cases of divorce or her husband’s death. If she died first, he inherited her property. If he died first, she could regain her premarital property but could not inherit any of her deceased husband’s property.

Until recently, Christianity has followed the same tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the post-Constantine (d. 337) Christian Roman Empire required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Under canon and civil law, a married woman in Christian Europe and America lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under British law were compiled and published in 1632. These “rights” included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” (17) In addition to losing her property upon her marriage, the wife also lost her legal personality as well. None of her acts had any legal value, for her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her. The person with whom she had made a contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue, be sued in her own name, or sue her husband.(18) A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. She simply belonged to her husband and therefore lost her property, legal personality, and family name.(19)

From the beginning of its revelation, Islam granted married women the independent personality denied to them in the Judeo-Christian West until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation to present a gift to the groom, and so a Muslim daughter is not considered a liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts to attract a potential husband; rather, the groom must present a marriage gift to the bride. This gift is considered her property, for the groom or her family have no share in or control over it, and she retains it even if she is later divorced. The husband has no share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent.(20)     

Divorce

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage based upon the attribution of Jesus’ words: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). This uncompromising ideal is unrealistic, for it assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their marriage is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will do them no good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her: If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

The above verses have caused considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of displeasing, indecency, and dislikes. The Talmud records their different opinions: The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel says he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba (21) says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she (Gittin 90a-b).

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives that obliged their husbands to divorce them: If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband (Git. 89a). The Talmud also has made it mandatory to divorce a wife who has born no children after 10 years: Our rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her (Yeb. 64a).

A Jewish wife cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law, but she can claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong reason exists. Such reasons include a husband who has a physical defect or a skin disease, or who cannot fulfill his conjugal responsibilities. The court might support her request for a divorce, but only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The court can scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver this bill of divorce, but he can refuse to do so and keep her tied to him indefinitely.

Even worse, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and thus leave her unmarried and undivorced. He can remarry or live with a single woman out of wedlock, and Jewish law will recognize the children as legitimate. On the other hand, the deserted wife cannot remarry because she is still legally married and will be considered an adulteress if she does so. If she has any children from another man, her children will be considered illegitimate for 10 generations. Such a woman is an agunah (chained woman).(22) In the United States today, there are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 Jewish women in this condition. In Israel, number might be as high as 16,000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.(23)

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism, for it views marriage as a sanctified bond that can be broken only for compelling reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies to save their marriages, for divorce is the last resort. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce but discourages it by all means. Let’s focus on the recognition side first. Islam recognizes the right of both partners to end their marriage. Islam gives the husband the right to divorce (talaq) and, unlike Judaism, allows the wife to dissolve the marriage through khula’.(24) If the husband dissolves the marriage, the Qur’an explicitly prohibits his from taking back their marriage gifts, regardless of their value: But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back. Would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong (4:20).

If the wife ends the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband, for in this case doing so would be a fair compensation for a husband who wants to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Qur’an instructs men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives, unless she chooses to end the marriage: It is not lawful for you (men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. There is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God, so do not transgress them (2:229).

Once, a woman came to the Prophet and asked him to dissolve her marriage. She told him that she had no complaints against her husband’s character or manners, but that she honestly disliked him so much that she could no longer live with him. Prophet asked her: “Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?” She said: “Yes.” The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the marriage’s dissolution (Bukhari). In some cases, a wife might be willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to get a divorce for such compelling reasons as her husband’s cruelty or inability to fulfill his conjugal duties, desertion without a reason, and so on. In these cases, the court dissolves the marriage.(25) In short, Islam offers women some unequalled rights: the rights to end the marriage and to sue for divorce. Thus, a recalcitrant husband can never chain his wife to him.

Let’s now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet told the believers that: “Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God” (Abu Dawud). A man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Qur’an instructs men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike: Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good (4:19). Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction: “A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits, he will be pleased with another” (Muslim). He also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives: “The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives” (Tirmidhi).(26)

However Islam, being a practical religion, recognizes that there are circumstances in which a marriage is on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, advice to be kind or self-restrained is no longer viable. Given this, then, how can such marriages be saved? The Qur’an offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer.

If the wife’s bad conduct is threatening the marriage, the Qur’an gives the husband four types of advice: As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them (lightly without slapping their faces). But if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance, for God is Most High, Great. If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, God will cause their reconciliation (4:34-35).

The first three are to be tried first. If they fail in this effort, the help of the families concerned should be sought. In the case of beating the rebellious wife, we should recognize the fact that this is no more than a temporary measure that is to be resorted to only as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wife’s wrongdoing. If this measure is successful, the husband must not continue to annoy his wife. If this measure fails, the husband must resort to the final measure: family-assisted reconciliation.

Prophet Muhammad instructed husbands to use these measures only in extreme cases, such as a wife’s open lewdness. Even in these cases the punishment should be slight and, if his wife desists, he must not irritate her: “In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance” (Tirmidhi).     Furthermore, the Prophet condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some wives complained to him that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, he stated that: “Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you” (Abu Dawud) and: “The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family” (Tirmidhi). He even advised Fatimah bint Qais not to marry a known wife-beater: “I went to the Prophet and said: ‘Abul Jahm and Mu’awiyah have proposed to marry me.’ The Prophet (by way of advice) said: ‘Mu’awiyah is very poor, and Abul Jahm beats women” (Muslim).

The Talmud sanctions wife-beating as a method of discipline.(27) A husband can beat his wife even for reasons that are not considered extreme, such as is she refuses to do the housework. In addition, his punishment does not have to be light, for he can whip or starve her if he so wishes.(28)

In the case of a wife who is seeking divorce, the Qur’an offers the following advice: If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best (4:128). In this case, she is advised to seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family assistance). The Qur’an does not advise her to deny sex to her husband or to beat him. The reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband, for such a reaction would only harm the wife and damage the marriage even further. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these measures on the wife’s behalf. In other words, the court first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife’s bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating.(29)

To sum up, Islam offers married couples much viable advice to save their marriages during times of trouble and tension. If one partner jeopardizes the marriage, the Qur’an advises the other partner to do whatever possible to save this sacred bond. If all measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and amicably.

Mothers

The Old Testament commands the kind and considerate treatment of parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and: A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother (Proverbs 15:20). Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, such as in: A wise man heeds his father’s instruction (Proverbs 13:1), the mother alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation for her great suffering during childbearing and suckling, and they inherit nothing from their children. (30)

Some New Testament verses can easily be misinterpreted if read literally with respect to the mother’s status (Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31-35). Jesus was trying to teach his audience the following  important lesson: Religious ties are just as important of family ties, and real virtue lies with belief in and servanthood to God.

Islam gives motherhood unparalleled honor, respect, and esteem. The Qur’an places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty: Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, do not say to them a word of contempt or repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: “My Lord, bestow on them Your Mercy, for they cherished me in childhood (17:23-24).

The Qur’an also puts special emphasis on the mother’s great role in giving birth and nursing: We have enjoined upon man to be good to his parents. In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents (31:14). The Prophet eloquently described the very special place of mothers: “A man asked the Prophet: ‘Whom should I honor most?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your father’” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Among the few Islamic precepts that Muslims still faithfully observe is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children, and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers, usually amaze Westerners.(31)

Female inheritance

One of the most important differences between the Qur’an and the Bible is their attitude toward female inheritance of a deceased relative’s property. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: “The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions.” (32)

The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband’s estate, while he is her first heir_even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother cannot inherit anything, while the father can. Widows and daughters, in the case of surviving male children, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. Christianity followed suit for a long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in their father’s patrimony. Moreover, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived until the late nineteenth century.(33)

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Qur’an abolished all of these unjust customs and gave all female relatives specific inheritance shares: From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large_a determinate share (4:7).

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters received inheritance rights 1,300 years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. Inheritance is a vast subject (4:7, 11-12, 176). The general rule is that the woman’s share is half the man’s, except in cases where the mother receives a share equal to that of the father. If taken in isolation from other related legislation, this general rule may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must consider that in Islam the financial obligations of men far exceed those of women (see the “Wife’s property” section). For example, a groom must provide his bride with a marriage gift, which remains her exclusive property even if she is later divorced. The bride does not have to present any such marriage gift.

Moreover, the husband must maintain his wife and children. The wife is under no obligation to help him do so. Her property and earnings belong to her only, except for what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam strongly advocates family life. It strongly encourages young people to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue (exceptional cases always exist). In a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and living a single life is a rare exception. Thus almost all marriage-aged Muslim women and men are married. In light of these facts, one must appreciate that men generally have greater financial burdens than women and that the Qur’an’s inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance. As a consequence, the society is not burdened with gender or class warfare. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of women, one British Muslim woman concluded that Islam treats women not only fairly but generously.(34)

The plight of widows

Given that the Old Testament recognizes no inheritance rights for widows, these women were among the most vulnerable members of their societies. The male relatives, who inherited all of a woman’s deceased husband’s estate, were to use that estate to take care of the widow. However, widows had no way to ensure this provision was carried out, and so lived on the mercy of others. They were among the lowest classes in some ancient societies, and widowhood was considered a symbol of great degradation (Isaiah 54:4). But the plight of a widow in the Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband’s property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her deceased husband’s brother, even if he is already married, to produce offspring for him so that his name will not die out: Then Judah said to Onan: “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8).

The widow’s consent is not required, for she is treated as part of her deceased husband’s property and her main function is to ensure her husband’s posterity. This Biblical law is still practiced in some places today.(35)  For example, a childless widow is bequeathed to her husband’s brother. If the brother is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the deceased husband’s brother refuse to marry her, she is set free and then can marry any man of her choice.

The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar practices. A widow was considered a part of her husband’s property to be inherited by his male heirs. In addition, usually she was given in marriage to the deceased man’s eldest son from another wife. The Qur’an scathingly attacked and abolished this degrading custom: Do not marry women whom your fathers married, except for what is passed, for it was shameful, odious, and abominable custom (4:22).

Widows and divorced women were so looked down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute: The woman he (the high priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people (Leviticus 21:13-15).

According to the Qur’an, however, widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they choose. Also, the Qur’an attaches no stigma to divorce or widowhood: When you divorce women and they fulfill their terms [three menstruation periods], either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms. Do not take them back to injure them or to take undue advantage. If anyone does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat God’s signs as a jest” (2:231); If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just manner (2:234); and: Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year’s maintenance and residence. But if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for what they justly do with themselves (2:240).    

Polygamy

Polygamy, a very ancient practice, is found in many human societies. The Bible does not condemn it; rather, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to its legality. King Solomon and King David are said to have had many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3 and 2 Samuel 5:13). The Old Testament does contain some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deuteronomy 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is that a man cannot take a wife’s sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.36 European Jews continued to practice it until the sixteenth century, while Oriental Jews regularly practiced it until they arrived in Israel, where it is forbidden under civil law. However, it is permissible under religious law, which overrides civil law in such cases.(37)

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful Polygamy Reconsidered:<em> “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” (38) Moreover, Jesus did not speak against polygamy although it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife, while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine: “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife.” (39)

The Qur’an also allows polygamy, but with certain restrictions: If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four. But if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one (4:3).

The Qur’an limits the number of wives to four under the strict condition that each wife be treated equally and justly. Thus it is not exhorting the believers to practice polygamy or representing it as an ideal, but only tolerates or allows it. For example, there might be times and places during which compelling social and moral reasons make polygamy more acceptable. As the above verse indicates, this issue cannot be understood apart from the Muslim community’s obligations toward orphans and widows. Islam, which is a universal religion suitable for all places and all times, cannot ignore such compelling obligations.

In most human societies, women outnumber men. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more women than men. In Guinea, there are 122 women for every 100 men. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 men for every 100 women. (40) What can a society with such unbalanced sex ratios do? There are various solutions: celibacy, female infanticide (which still happens in some societies), or to tolerance of sexual permissiveness (e.g., prostitution, extramarital sex, and homosexuality).

For other societies, like most African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamy as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. People in the West often do not understand that women in other cultures do not necessarily consider polygamy to be a sign of women’s degradation. For example, many young African brides, whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has proven himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. (41) A survey of over 6,000 women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in Nigeria’s second largest city showed that 60% of them would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23% expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. In a survey conducted in Kenya, 76% of the women viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy and that it could be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other. (42)

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. An Anglican bishop in Kenya declared that: “Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain cultures polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable.” (43) After a careful study of African polygamy, the Anglican Reverend David Gitari concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and children are concerned. (44)  I personally know of some highly educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many years, have no objection to polygamy.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic during times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. After the Second World War, there were 7.3 milliion more women than men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group. (45) Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household during a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces in return for cigarettes, chocolate, and bread, and children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought.(46) Today in places where ethnic cleansing has been conducted, like in Bosnia, there is 1 man for every 10 women; in Kosovo, there is 1 man for every 5 women. We have to ask our own conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An accepted and respected second wife as in the native American Indians’ approach, or a virtual prostitute due to her and her children’s starvation?

Interestingly, participants in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 discussed the problem of Germany’s highly unbalanced sex ratio. When it became clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The gathering’s initial reaction was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, participants agreed that it was the only possible solution. Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations. (47)

Today, the world possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact: “It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival…. Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise in favor of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage.”(48)

Even in our own time, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of modern society’s social ills. The communal obligations that the Qur’an mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, in the United States today there is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every 20 young black males may die before reaching their twenty-first birthday. For those between 20 and 35, homicide is the leading cause of death. (49) In addition, many young black men are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. (50) As a result, 25% of black 40-year-old women have never married. (51) Moreover, many young black women become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers.

The end result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in “man-sharing,” (52) which means that they are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are “sharing” their husbands. Some obser-vers of this crisis in the black community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black men until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken. (53) The problem of man-sharing in the black community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993.(54) Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as a potential remedy. They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses.

In his Plural Marriage for Our Time, Philip Kilbride, a Catholic American anthropologist, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. (55)                                                           

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley asked students whether they agreed that the law should allow men to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of marriageable men in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage would fulfill her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. (56) In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon (57) women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children, since the wives help each other care for the children. (58)

In Islam, polygamy is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Moreover, a wife has the right to stipulate that her husband cannot take a second wife.(59) On the other hand, the Bible sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. For example, a childless widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married (see the “Plight of widows” section) regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist, has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community.” (60)

Many Muslim and non-Muslim countries have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the first wife’s free consent, is a violation of the law. But cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? This is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern “civilized” world.

The veil

Finally, let’s shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression and servitude: the veil or the head-covering. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer, a professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University and author of The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering that sometimes left only one eye free. (61) He quotes some famous ancient rabbis who said that: “It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen … a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.”

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman, since uncovering the woman’s hair is considered to be nudity.(62) He also mentions that: “During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also explains that a Jewish woman’s veil was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, it symbolized a state of distinction and luxury, for it personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. (63)

The veil signified a woman’s self-respect and social status. Women of the lower classes would often wear it to give the impression of a higher standing. Given that the veil was the sign of nobility, prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, they often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.(64) Jewish women in Europe continued to wear cover their hair until the nineteenth century, when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of nineteenth-century European life forced many of them to go out bareheaded. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional head-covering with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women only cover their hair in the synagogue.(65) Some of them, such as the Hasidic (66) sects, still use the wig.(67)

What about the Christian tradition? Catholic nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years. But there is even more, as we learn from St. Paul’s very interesting statements about the veil: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. It is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women is that the veil is a sign of the authority of man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman, who was created from and for man. In his famous treatise “On the Veiling of Virgins,” St. Tertullian wrote: “Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers…” Among the canon laws of the Catholic Church today is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. (68) Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites,  still retain a head-covering for their women today. (69)

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent, but rather endorses, the head-covering. The Qur’an urges believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty, and urges believing women to cover the neck and bosom: Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms (24:30-31).

The Qur’an is quite clear that such covering is essential for modesty, and that modesty is important: O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested (33:59). This is the whole point: Modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, its only purpose in Islam is to offer protection. Unlike its status in other traditions, such covering is not a sign of man’s authority over woman, of woman’s subjection to man, or of luxury and the distinction of some noble married women. It is no more than a sign of modesty designed to protect women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry.

In fact, the Qur’an is so concerned with protecting a woman body and reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished: And those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes and reject their evidence ever after, for such men are wicked transgressors (24:4).

Some people, especially in the West, tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilized behavior, and self-restraint. We say “Fine, but that is not enough.” If civilization is enough protection, then why do women in North America dare not walk down a dark street alone or even across an empty parking lot? If education is the solution, then why does a respected Canadian university like Queen’s have a walk-home service mainly for female students on campus? If self-restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of men recently accused of sexual harassment includes naval officers, managers, university professors, Supreme Court justices, and even the top officers.

I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office at Queen’s University: “In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes; 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives; 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime; and 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university; and a study found that 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn’t get caught.”

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society in which we live. A radical change in the society’s life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed_ modesty in the dress, speech, and manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price.

Footnotes

1. Leonard J. Swidler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976), 115.
2. Thena Kendath, “Memories of an Orthodox Youth,” in Susannah Heschel, ed. On being a Jewish Feminist (New York: Schocken Books, 1983), 96-97.
3. Rosemary R. Ruether, “Christianity,” in Arvind Sharma, ed., Women in World Religions (Albany: SUNY Press, 1987), 209.
4. For all the sayings of the prominent saints, see Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman (London: Elm Tree Books, 1986) 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973), 28-30.
5. Bukhari, “Talaq,” 25, “Adab,” 24; Muslim, “Zuhd,” 42.
6. Denise L. Carmody, “Judaism,” in Sharma, Women in World Religions, 197.
7. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 140.
8. Ibid., 138.
9. Ibid., 115.
10. Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Pres, 1973), 149.
11. Lesley Hazleton, Israeli Women: The Reality Behind the Myths (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), 41.
12. Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church, and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1893), 142.
13. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 141.
14. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 141.
15. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 164-65.
16. Ibid., 112-13. See also Sally Priesand, Judaism and the New Woman,(New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1975),p.15.
17. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1974), 162.
18. Mary Murray, The Law of the Father (London: Routledge, 1995), 67.
19. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 143.
20. El-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 11th ed. (Cairo: Darul Fatah li al-&amp;#8216;Alam al-&amp;#8216;Arabi, 1994), 2:218-29.
21. Akiba ben Joseph: (50?-132) a Jewish scholar of religion who had a significant influence on Judaism. (Ed.)
22. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 162-63.
23. The Toronto Star, 8 Apr. 1995.
24. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 2:318-29. See also Muhammad al-Ghazali, Qadayah al-Mar’ah bayn al Taqalid al-Rakidah wa al-Wafidah, 4th ed. (Cairo: Dar al Shuruq, 1992), 178-80.
25. Ibid., 313-18.
26. Tirmidhi, “Rada,” 11; Abu Dawud, “Sunnah,” 15; Darimi, “al-Riqaq,” 74.
27. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 219.
28. Ibid., 156-57.
29. Muhammad Abu Zahra, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami (Cairo: al-Majlis al-A&amp;#8216;la li Ri&amp;#8216;ayat al-Funun, 1963), 66.
30. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 122.
31. Armstrong, The Gospel, 8.
32. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 175.
33. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 142.
34. B. Aisha Lemu and Fatima Heeren, Woman in Islam  ( London: Islamic Foundation, 1978 ), 23.
35. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 45-46.
36. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 144-48.
37. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 44-45.
38. Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (New York: Orbis Books, 1975), 140.
39. Ibid., 17.
40. Ibid., 88-93.
41. Ibid., 92-97.
42. Philip L. Kilbride, Plural Marriage for Our Times (Westport, CT: Bergin &amp; Garvey, 1994), 108-9.
43. The Weekly Review, 1 Aug. 1987.
44. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 126.
45. Ute Frevert, Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (New York: Berg Publishers, 1988), 263-64.
46. Ibid., 257-58.
47. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 191.
48. Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered, 12.
49. Nathan Hare and Julie Hare, eds., Crisis in Black Sexual Politics (San Francisco: Black Think Tank, 1989), 25.
50. Ibid., 26.
51. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 94.
52. Ibid., 95.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 95-99.
55. Ibid., 118.
56. Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 172.
57. A member of the religious movement founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith ((1805-1844) in New York. (Ed.)
58. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 72-73.
59. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 187-88.
60. Abdul Rahman Doi, Woman in Shari&amp;#8216;ah (London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1994), 76.
61. Menachem M. Brayer, The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing House, 1986), 239.
62. Ibid., 316-17. Also see Swidler, Women in Judaism, 121-23.
63. Ibid., 139.
64. Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1984), 237.
65. Ibid., 238-39.
66. A mystical Jewish movement that first emerged in Poland and neighboring countries in 18th century, based upon prayer, love, and joy. (Ed.)
67. Alexandra Wright, “Judaism,” in Holm and Bowker, ed., op. cit., 128-29.
68. Clara M. Henning, “Cannon Law and the Battle of the Sexes,” in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 272.
69. A group of Christians from The Netherlands and northwestern Germany who were organized in 1540 around an approach to baptism that differed from the mainstream Protestants. They migrated to America in 1540, and are very tolerant toward other religious groups and faiths. (Ed.)

A: The Qur’an was revealed to make us aware of the Creator, affirm that He is known through His creation, direct us to belief and worship, and order individual and social life so that we attain happiness in both worlds. Today, many Muslims pursue science to obtain a better understanding of Him and His creation. Keeping this in mind, consider the following Qur’anic allusions to scientific facts:

Soon We shall show them Our signs on the furthest horizons, and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses all things? (41:53)

Our thinking and research affirms the Creator’s Oneness, as the true nature and interrelationship of microcosm and macrocosm are further disclosed and better understood. Scientists seem to be very close to proving this Divine truth. Even now we feel that soon we shall hear and understand creation’s testimonies and praises to God, as mentioned in 17:44.

O humanity, if you doubt the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like cloth, then out of a lump of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (what We will) to you… (22:5)

We created man from a quintessence (of clay). Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed. Then we made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood. Then of that clot We made a lump (embryo); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh. Then We developed out of it a new (distinct, indi-vidual) creature. (23:12“14)

He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness … (39:6)

These three veils of darkness are the parametrium, miometrium, and the endometrium, three tissues enveloping three water-, heat-, and light-proof membranes (the amnion, corion, and the womb’s wall).

In cattle will you find an instructive sign. From what is from their bodies, between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it (16:66)

The Qur’an details this process: food’s partial digestion and absorption, followed by a second process and refinement in the glands. Milk is wholesome and agreeable for people, yet is rejected by the cow’s body and bloodstream as useless.

Glory be to God, who created in pairs all things, of what the soil produces, and of themselves, and of what they know not. (36:36)

We know that people, animals, and certain plants have counterparts. But what about the pairs in all things and of what they know not? This may refer to a whole range of inanimate and animate entities, subtle forces, and principles of nature. Science confirms that everything occurs in pairs.

Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and Earth were joined together (as a single mass) before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)

Every living thing was created of water. What is important here is that the universe is a single miracle of creation, not how life came about. Everything in it is an integral part of that miracle, bears signs that prove it, and is interconnected. The verse emphasizes water’s vitality and significance.

The sun runs its course (mustaqarr) determined for it. That is His de-cree, the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing. (36:38)

In fact, mustaqarr here may mean a determined orbit in space or time, a fixed place of rest or dwelling. Thus the sun has a specific orbit, moves to-ward a particular point, and will rest when its task is finished. Such words were spoken at a time when people thought the sun orbited Earth.

The firmament: We constructed it with power and skill, and We are expanding it. (51:47“48)

This verse reveals that the distance between celestial bodies is increasing, for the universe is ex-panding. In 1922, the astronomer Hubble claimed that all galaxies, ex-cept the five closest to Earth, are moving further into space at a speed directly proportional to their distance from Earth. Le Ma tre, a Belgian mathematician and priest, later proposed and developed the theory that the universe is expanding.

God raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see… (13:2)

All celestial bodies move in order, balance, and harmony. They are held and supported in this order by invisible pillars, known to science as the balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces: He holds back the sky from falling on earth except by His leave… (22:65)

By the moon’s fullness, you shall travel from stage to stage (84:18“19)

Some earlier commentators thought that this described one’s spiritual ascent or a process of change. Later Qur’anic interpreters thought that it could not be taken literally. But given the context, this really means travelling to the moon, whether literally or figuratively.

Do they not see how We gradually shrink the land from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will be victors? (21:44)

The reference to shrinking could reflect Earth’s being compressed at the poles, rather than to such earlier theories as the erosion of mountains by wind and rain, of the sea-shores by the sea, or of the desert’s encroach-ment of cultivated lands. The Qur’an’s depiction of Earth as egg-shaped (79:30-32) is also borne out by science.

We have made the night and the day as two signs; the sign of the night We have obscured, while the sign of the day We have made to enlighten you… (17:12)

According to Ibn Abbas, the sign of the night refers to the moon, and the sign of the day to the sun. Therefore, from the words the sign of the night We have obscured, we understand that God removed the moon’s ability to emit light, thereby causing it to darken or become obscured. While the verse thus accurately re-counts the moon’s past, it points to the future destiny of other heavenly bodies.

The Qur’an, although it contains many more such allusions, must not be considered a science textbook. Its only purpose is to guide us to right belief and right action. We must ensure that it, and not our arrogance, insolence, and vainglory, directs our pursuit of knowledge.

When modern science agrees with the Qur’an

Science is the language that most people speak and understand today. Thus Muslims should be well-versed in it to refute the claims of materialists and atheists. The Qur’an encourages us to pursue such knowledge, provided that we seek only to earn God’s good pleasure and ensure understanding among the people.

Moreover, how can the eternal and unchanging Qur’an be proven by science, which is subject to change? Science only serves to awaken sleeping or confused minds. It cannot establish the truths of faith in our conscience, for faith comes only by Divine guidance. Our faith, not our knowledge, makes us believers. Objective and subjective evidence must eventually be dropped, so that we can make spiritual progress by following our heart and conscience within the Qur’an’s light and guidance.

Diana Eck, leader of Harvard University’s Pluralism Project, introduces readers to America’s new religious landscape of mosques, temples, and monasteries. Focusing mainly on the period after the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, she calls this change very subtle and largely unnoticed.

She discusses the meaning of religious diversity and freedom. Basing herself on the Great Seal of the United States ”E pluribus unum (From Many, One) ” she asks: What is the measure of our manyness? What is the meaning of our oneness? Each religion and culture, she asserts, has its own way of addressing these questions.

For example, a Muslim imam referred to Qur’an 49:13 in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives: Do you not know, O people, that I have made you into tribes and nations that you may know each other? Hinduism’s Rig Veda (I.64.46) says: Truth is One. People call it by many names.

The author defines pluralism as the dynamic process through which we engage with one another in and through our very deepest differences. Some of its manifestations are Nikes and Reeboks adorning shoe racks in gurdwaras, mosques, and temples; a Muslim Girl Scout who promises to serve Allah and my country; and consecration rituals at a Hindu temple using a mixture of sacred Ganges river water and regular Mississippi river water.

This well-written and thought-provoking book provides an historical context, describes legal battles and pivotal court cases, and addresses stereotypes, religiously motivated hate crimes, how some communities have welcomed religious pluralism, and appropriate models for engagement.

The author, one of Turkeys most respected Islamic scholars, discusses Islams core beliefs. After giving brief summaries of traditional arguments for Gods Existence and Unity, Gulen analyzes modern theories related to nature, natural laws, and causes, as well as matter and chance. Supporting his arguments with accounts of scientific experiments, he also appeals to common sense by asking if any person or thing can be created without an author or by itself.

The second chapter analyzes angels, jinn, the spirit, death, Satan, and other spiritual topics. The third chapter, dealing with Destiny and free will, refutes the idea that Islam teaches predestination. According to Gulen, we œreap what we sow, for we have been given the Truth and told that we will be rewarded or punished according to how much we live our lives by it. Besides, fatalism is based upon a mistaken belief: that our human and therefore artificial division of time into past, present, and future somehow affects God. It does not.

The fourth chapter provides the Quranic and general arguments for the resurrection and the afterlife, while the fifth chapter discusses how Muslims understand Prophethood and Muhammads Prophethood. Gulen presents both sides of the Prophets life: spiritual and material. He also mentions the Bibles references to Muhammad, and deals with his miracles and polygamy. The final chapter presents the Quranic view of Prophet Muhammad and why the Quran and science are compatible.

The author is to be commended for relying upon Muslim sources, as well as his own practice and study. He presents Islam as devout and practicing Muslims understand it. It is a refreshing break from books by scholars who seek to explain a religion that they do not follow, and whose sacred language they often do not know, to others who want to learn about it.

This book should be read by all those who want to understand how Muslims understand Islam and view themselves.