With each suffocated breath, centuries of oppression were exhaled. Floyd’s death did not occur in isolation; it echoed the cries of countless others whose lives had been shattered by the slow, systemic violence of racism. His plea became a rallying cry, awakening a world that had grown numb to injustice. Streets filled with voices, fists raised not in hatred but in a desperate yearning for dignity and equality.

This was not merely the story of one man—it was the story of humanity’s ongoing struggle with a disease that infects not the body, but the soul: racism. A silent plague passed down through generations, cloaked in law, culture, and indifference. And yet, even as the breath was taken from one man, it stirred a moral conscience in millions. It reminded the world that to deny the humanity of one is to endanger the humanity of all.

Racism: a contagious disease

In recent years, racism and xenophobia have been on the rise across the globe, fueled by economic uncertainties, political populism, and social polarization. The increasing fear of the “other” has led to discriminatory policies and widespread societal divisions. Racism is a social construct that fosters discrimination and prejudice based on race or ethnicity. It is deeply rooted in history and manifests in various forms, including systemic discrimination, social exclusion, and outright violence. Racism and hate crimes have witnessed a troubling resurgence across the globe. In the United States, the FBI reported a record-high 11,862 hate crime incidents in 2023, with over 51.3% targeting Black or African American individuals, making race-based offenses the most prevalent. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, recorded racial hate crimes surpassed 100,000 for the first time in 2022, reaching 155,841 incidents—a 26% increase compared to the previous year.

On a global scale, the World Justice Project’s 2022 Rule of Law Index found that

three-quarters of countries have experienced an increase in discrimination since 2015, highlighting a worldwide decline in equal treatment and social cohesion. These statistics underscore that racism is not merely a personal bias but a deep-rooted social illness that continues to erode justice and unity in modern societies.

The causes of racism are multifaceted, stemming from ignorance, ethnocentrism, economic disparity, and political manipulation. Throughout history, societies have used race as a means of division, oppression, and superiority, leading to widespread social injustice. While racism continues to be a destructive force, various religious and moral doctrines, particularly Islam, offer a strong counter-narrative that emphasizes equality, brotherhood, and justice.

So you may know one another

Religious teachings, including those found in the Qur’an and the hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him), strongly condemn racism and promote the idea of universal human equality. One of the most profound Qur’anic verses addressing this issue is found in Surah al-Hujurat (49:13):

O humankind! Surely We have created you from a single (pair of) male and female, and made you into tribes and families so that you may know one another. Surely the most honorable of you in God’s sight is the one best in piety, righteousness, and reverence for God. Surely God is All-Knowing, All-Aware.  

This verse establishes that racial and ethnic differences are merely a means of identification, not a basis for superiority. True honor and distinction come from righteousness and moral integrity rather than race or lineage.

Another verse reinforcing the message of equality is found in Surah ar-Rum (30:22): “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and colors. Indeed, those are signs for those of knowledge.”

This verse highlights that human diversity signifies God’s wisdom and creative power. It encourages people to embrace and appreciate differences rather than use them as a source of division and discrimination.

None has superiority over another

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) consistently preached against racism and promoted unity among different ethnic groups. One of his most famous statements on this matter is from his final sermon:

“O people! Your Lord is one, and your father (Adam) is one. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; none has superiority over another except by piety and good action.” (Musnad Ahmad)

This hadith clearly states that racial and ethnic backgrounds do not determine a person’s worth; rather, character and righteousness are the true measures of superiority. Prophet Muhammad’s actions, peace be upon him, also reflected his teachings. One notable example is his appointment of Bilal ibn Rabah, a former African slave, as the first muezzin (caller to prayer) of Islam, demonstrating that one’s background does not impede one’s spiritual or social standing in the Muslim community.

Islamic scholars have long examined the detrimental effects of racism on societies. One such scholar, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, likened racism to the venereal disease of syphilis, describing it as a silent but deadly force that weakens the moral and social fabric of society. According to Nursi, racism infiltrates communities stealthily, corroding unity and fostering division. He emphasized that nationalism, when positive, fosters solidarity and mutual support, but when corrupted, becomes a divisive force that undermines social harmony. He also warned that colonial powers deliberately manipulated racial and nationalist sentiments to weaken the unity of undeveloped nations, using racism as a tool for control and division.

Moreover, Nursi compared racism to an inflated ego, arguing that an exaggerated sense of racial superiority stems from an individual’s excessive self-importance. Racism, he explained, is an external projection of an enlarged ego—where individuals prioritize their racial identity over their fundamental human values. He noted that racist ideologies gain traction during times of social and political crises, just as latent diseases emerge when the body’s immune system is weakened.

A path toward eradication of racism

Racism remains a pervasive issue in modern society, perpetuating injustice, division, and hostility. However, our faith traditions, especially the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet, provide a compelling framework for combating racial prejudice. The concept of human equality, as emphasized in the divine scriptures, negates racial superiority and calls for universal brotherhood based on faith, righteousness, and justice.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s analogy of racism as a social disease offers profound insights into its insidious nature. Just as an untreated disease silently weakens the body, racism corrodes the social order, leading to hostility and fragmentation. To eradicate this moral ailment, societies must embrace the principles of justice, equality, and unity.

Beyond religious doctrine and philosophical reflections, real-world initiatives also play a crucial role in combating racism and fostering intercultural understanding. The Hizmet Movement, inspired by the teachings of Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen, has long emphasized dialogue, education, and mutual respect among diverse communities. One of its most prominent initiatives, the Turkish Language Olympiads, brought together students from over 160 countries to celebrate linguistic and cultural diversity. Through poetry and song performances, participants transcended borders and stereotypes, highlighting the unifying power of shared humanity. In addition, the movement’s sustained interfaith and intercultural dialogue efforts have served as important platforms for breaking down prejudices and promoting peaceful coexistence. These initiatives exemplify how grassroots efforts, when rooted in sincerity and mutual respect, can effectively challenge racism and build bridges across differences.

Breaking the cycle of prejudice

History has repeatedly shown the destructive consequences of racism. Yet, humanity has the power to break this cycle through education, awareness, and moral commitment. Until societies actively implement the principles of justice and inclusivity, they will continue to suffer from the consequences of racial prejudice. By fostering a collective commitment to eradicating racism, we can ensure that future generations inherit a society where people, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., are valued not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. The responsibility lies with all of us to challenge discrimination, promote understanding, and embrace the diversity that makes humanity strong.

Jefferson, a deist himself, appears in the book uniquely positioned among the Founding Fathers, with his unyielding advocacy of equal rights for all beliefs, including Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and pagans, all of which were despised by the Protestant groups that dominated the young American society at the time. Spellberg traces the origins of his fervor for religious pluralism and his demand for tolerating Muslims and other beliefs to the liberal European thinkers like Locke. A detailed history of European debates on religious freedom and tolerance helps the reader to understand that the current tension in Europe about the rights and place of Muslims in the continent also has ties going back several centuries. We see that hostility against Islam, often based on an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the religion of Islam and Islamic history, was very visible in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was an exception in those times to paint a relatively objective picture of Muslims and their beliefs. Interestingly, those figures who did that or advocated some form of tolerance for Muslims ended up being labeled as Muslims, which at that time in the Christian world meant being labeled an infidel. Jefferson got his share of this, too: he was called a Muslim or infidel when he advocated for the equality of all religions, including Islam.

Jefferson’s defense of religious freedom and equality is better understood when it is seen in the light of his own view of Islam and Islamic history. He was not different from his contemporaries in this aspect. His purchase of a translation of the Qur’an for his library shows his interest to learn more about the religion, partly caused by his involvement as the US Ambassador to Paris during negotiations with the North African tribes for American hostages. His brief study of Islam didn’t help eliminate his negative perception of Islam. It was an image continuously perpetuated by the surrounding climate of hostility against Islam which was, by and large, an imitation of European attitudes. Nevertheless, his opposition to any type of religious coercion in the hands of the government and his attachment to the ideal of national and religious equality was strong enough to include Muslims as acceptable and legitimate members of American society.

Spellberg finds no historical record showing that Jefferson or his contemporaries officially acknowledged the presence of Muslims in America at the time, even though there were many, at least among the slaves brought from Africa, and perhaps some among Jefferson’s own slaves. In a sense, the talk about religious pluralism in the early years of American government often referred to Muslims (often called Turks, due to the Ottomans) as imaginary members of the society, focusing on what would happen if they were there. For most Americans of Jefferson’s time, there was little or no difference between Muslims and pagans.

It is clear that the notion of religious freedom as championed by Jefferson and others in these conditions required a certain level of unwavering commitment to equality. These years produced a strong foundation upon which today’s Muslims in America, with other religious groups, came to enjoy their equal rights. Under constitutional protection, rights were granted without a demand from real Muslims – and people of all faiths, or no faith at all.

Overall, Spellberg’s book is an important read on the history of European and American perceptions of Islam and religious freedom. Its well crafted story of the process by which religious equality came to be a foundational element of the American ideal is of immense value to any student of American history.

The 2006 World Development Report analyzes the relationship between equity and economic development in Developing countries. In this essay, I re-examine the relationship between equality, equity and development from a long-term economic development perspective. Equality refers to the condition where socioeconomic groups, i.e. upper, middle and lower classes, in a society have access to relatively similar levels of income. Equity, however, roughly corresponds to the broader term of human development,² and emphasizes equality of opportunity, and a broader set of human conditions. In the light of this report by the World Bank, I suggest that contrary to the long-held views, the development of contemporary Developing countries can only be achieved by “leveling the playing field” among citizens.

For long years, it was believed that economic development led to human development. it was assumed that as a country develops economically, it is able to provide more for the basic needs of its citizens such as education, healthcare, and a better quality of life. Even though it seems reasonable to expect improvement in individuals’ quality of life as a country develops, we have not observed many countries successfully achieving this better quality of life by following the advice of policymakers. However, a casual observation suggests that the relationship between economic development and human development may be endogenous; that is, just as it is natural to expect economic development to affect human development, we should be able to observe various aspects of human development shaping the course of development of many Developing countries. In fact, many Developing countries such as India and Turkey perform better in measures of economic development due to their higher levels of educated citizens.

Equality – development tradeoff

Following Simon Kuznets’ (1955) pioneering study on the relationship between economic development and equality, academicians and policymakers believed that there exists an inherent trade-off between economic development and socioeconomic equality. The dominant perspective places economic efficiency concerns at the center of this tradeoff .³Equality-enhancing redistribution programs lead to “diversion of resources away from their most efficient use.” According to this view, employing limited resources in welfare-improving areas results in a decrease in economic growth as well as underutilized resources. Instead of employing the relatively scarce factor of production, that is capital, in new investment opportunities which would economically be more efficient, spending the capital on less productive social redistribution would negatively affect the economic development hopes negatively.

The main alternative view highlights the welfare consequences of the presumed tradeoff between growth and equality. Proponents of this perspective claim that a focus on rapid growth is likely to entail “distorted patterns of development” and to reduce the welfare of the poor in the society. In particular, the state along with the actors in the private sector directs its focus on increasing productivity and efficiency in the manufacturing sector. Any financial commitment that potentially decreases efficiency in the economy is strictly avoided; redistribution to the poor in the society is considered among such expenditures. The socio-economic distress of the poor simply takes a backseat vis A vis economic efficiency. In order to minimize the short-term effects of the growth-oriented economy, equality should take precedence over economic growth. In the long-run, equality will positively impact economic development.

A recent report by the World Bank draws attention to this widely-accepted tradeoff between development and equality,⁴and proposes an alternative. The report claims that equality and development are complementary to each other rather than contradictory. Economic growth without equality can only provide distorted patterns of economic development leaving the majority of the population in need, just as we observe in many Developing countries today. On the other hand, an exclusive focus on equality is likely to hinder development as valuable resources at the disposal of capital-holders are diverted from their efficient use. As a result, a long-term solution to this impasse requires the introduction of a delicate trade-off between the two: Investment in human. Human development, hence, lies at the heart of this new conception of economic development.

Equity and equality

Equality, in the conventional sense of the term, refers to the elimination of extreme disparity with respect to wealth among individuals within a given community. For this end, different states have applied various forms of redistribution in order to eliminate inequality of income. Such use of the term mostly taps into the outcome aspect of equality. That is, the goal is to minimize the differences in incomes of the people by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Equity, on the other hand, is the new term offered by the World Bank to development terminology. Equity is based on a larger conceptualization of the notion of equality. It suggests equal opportunities in respect to education, health and such; no explicit implication is being offered for the outcome-based notion of equality. Individual responsibility, in this regard, is critical in bridging equal opportunity at the outset with the final outcome.

John Rawls’ notion of the “veil of ignorance” summarizes the basic idea behind this contemporary understanding of equity.⁵ The veil of ignorance is expected to provide a fair allocation of resources that all members of a society would agree. In a hypothetical decision-making situation prior to their knowledge of which position they would occupy in the society, individuals are asked to allocate resources to members of the community; they may be the worse-off or best-off in the community, hence they will put an effort in fairly allocating the resources. In essence, Rawls concludes that “primary goods” should be provided for all, referring to the equality of opportunity for all. Amartya Sen dwells on a similar concept of primary goods, “functionings,” and defines it as “the set of actions a person performs and of states the person values and enjoys.”⁶ It is important to recognize the fact that no suggestions are being made here with respect to the conventional understanding of equality, that is income redistribution. The emphasis in this conceptualization of equity highlights the relative importance of equal opportunity provision over outcome-based redistribution, but not necessarily the exclusion of the latter for the sake of the former.

Inequality traps

Based on this relatively modern notion of equity, it is possible to identify three ways that equity and development are complementary in Developing countries. The first of these ways touches on the notion of “inequality traps.” Inequality traps can be defined as the reproduction of economic, political and social inequalities “over time and across generations.”⁷ Existing political and economic inequalities in Developing countries systematically favor the interests of a relatively small elite group over the rest of the society. By the use of overt or covert power, the elite in Developing countries are able to influence the policymaking process more effectively despite their disadvantage in number. As the poor are likely to be much less involved in the political decision-making process, the vicious circle of underperformance continues.

The second way that equity and development relate to each other comes in the form of inefficient redistribution mechanisms. The institutional structures are tailored to benefit not the neediest in the society, but rather middle-class and upper middle-class citizens.⁸Hence, the influence of the more advantaged in the society further determines the shape of the institutional structure.

Finally, leveling the playing field does potentially affect the investment and innovation environment. A modern economy is inconceivable without an active investment environment. Inequality of opportunity prevents individuals like Nthabiseng from taking part in the modern economy and realizing their potential. Barred from entry, either through institutional mechanisms or mere negligence, individuals facing inequality of opportunity will not be able to enrich the environment of competition necessary for economic development. The relatively few and well-endowed rich will be less likely to feel any pressure to pursue innovation and investment opportunities. Competition, which is regarded as the major source of development, will not come about. As a result, the resulting environment is inimical to sustainable development and poverty reduction.

Implications

Several world religions endorse social justice, helping the poor, and equality as central principles in their teachings. Even though these principles may manifest themselves in fundamentally different ways, the basic idea remains the same. Christians are urged to love their neighbors as themselves; Buddhists are responsible for caring for the poor; one of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving); and, the word for “charity” is the same as for “justice” in Hebrew.⁹ As a demonstration of this shared concern among world religions, the World Faiths Development Dialogue has issued a statement the essence of which asserts as follows: “All religions would see the extreme material poverty in the world today as a moral indictment to contemporary humanity and a breach of trust within the human family.”¹⁰ In addition to this poverty-reducing aspect of religions, it is easy to see how this recent understanding of equity can also be inferred from one of the fundamental tenets of all religions. Human dignity constitutes a shared and fundamental theological principle for world religions.¹¹ In order for human beings to reflect this dignity, the latent potential for perfection has to be provided with the right set of opportunities, and basic necessities such as health care, education, and nutrition. Otherwise, undeveloped individual potentials do run the risk of being wasted leading to both dishonoring human dignity and economic underdevelopment, as a social phenomenon.

In what preceded, I introduced a new perspective on economic development, a chronic problem among Developing countries. By making a distinction between equality of income and equality of opportunities, the presumed trade-off between equality and economic growth might be overcome. It is my hope that this new emphasis on equality and human development will allow billions of people living in dire conditions to reclaim their dignity as humans. Eventually, this emphasis on human development will result in economic development, long-anticipated in Developing countries.

A. Kadir Yildirim is a PhD candidate in political science at the Ohio State University. He can be reached at yildirim.10@osu.edu.

Notes

1. The story of Nthabiseng and Pieter is taken from World Development Report 2006 by World Bank.
2. Human Development is defined by the United Nations Development Programme as “the priority of human well-being, and aimed at ensuring and enlarging human choices which lead to equality of opportunities for all people in society and empowerment of people so that they participate in – and benefit from – the development process.” Education, health care, and quality of life are different aspects of human development. For reference, see: http://www.undp.org/rbec/nhdr/1996/georgia/glossary.htm
3. Bruce Moon and William Dixon. 1992. “Basic Needs and Growth-Welfare Trade-offs.” International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 36 (2).
4. World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. Oxford University Press: New York.
5. John Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Amartya Sen. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
7. World Development Report, p. 2.
8. Rudra, Nita. Who Really Gets Hurt? Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries Manuscript. Also, see World Development Report, p. 179, for a similar discussion.
9. World Development Report, p. 76.
10. http://www.wfdd.org.uk/, September 1999.
11. In a recent article in The Fountain, Halim Calis presents a compelling argument on human dignity in Islam and Christianity as a common ground for interfaith dialogue. See “Holy Sources of Human Dignity.” The Fountain, Issue 58, 2007.

A: Before discussing the equality of men and women, we should first look more closely at the meaning of “equal” and “equality.”

“Equal” means that there is no difference between things, that they have the same nature, quality, value and dimension. On the other hand, “equality” means that there is no discrimination between people in terms of rights.

Having established these definitions of “equal and “equality,” then how are we to view women in relation to men?

a) Difference in Nature

God has created everything in the universe in pairs. It is impossible to say that one of these pairs is equal to the other in all respects. “And of everything we have created pairs that you may reflect.” (Az-Zariyat, 51/49).

From atoms to plants, and from these to the male and female of animals and human beings, everything has been created in pairs and each member of the pair is in need of the other. Positives are in need of negatives, electrons are in need of protons, night is in need of day, summer is in need of winter, the surface of the earth is in need of the sky, men are in need of women and vice versa. In addition, there are probably other pairs that we may not know of yet, but we will learn about these with the development of science and technology.

Just as God has created the electron in relation to the proton, the negative in relation to the positive, and the female seed in relation to the male seed, God has created women and men, and He has formed a unity between these couples. But just as positive and negative are not equal, nor are the electron and proton equal, women are not equal to men. This is an unchanging rule of the nature of creation. Moreover, other than God, Who is One, everything else is deficient and insignificant and cannot continue its existence by itself. So, men and women, who are imcomplete by themselves, will come together to form a union, and it is this union that is the essence of the whole.

Therefore, women and men are not equal, but they complete each other. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), in one of his hadith says: “Women are (the other) half of men.”

The word for “other half”-sakik-in this hadith means a piece of a whole divided into two through the middle. This means that each piece that is forming the whole is the sakik of the other. Thus, according to this hadith, women and men are equal halves as human beings. But they are never the same as the other; that is, their natural, spiritual and psychological structures are different. As a woman can never be equal to a man according to his physical and spiritual structure, a man can never be equal to a women according to the same aspects. Neither are men biologically superior, nor are women inferior to men. As human beings cannot really change the difference between the sexes, both believers and nonbelievers should give up their dreams of bein equal and should accept women and men as they are.

In addition, we cannot even claim that individuals of the same sex are totally equal to one another. Trying to verify this would be to attempt to change the rules of creation; such efforts are useless. Here we should mention that the difference in the creation of women should not lead men to feel superior. On the contrary, God states, “And Who made (things) according to a measure, then guided rightly” (Al-Ala 87/3). He is the One who creates women and men in the best pattern of creation and He is the One Who teaches them how to improve themselves. He is the One Who makes them complementary to one another and the protector and guardian for one another.

b) Differences in Duty

As is clear from the above explanations, just as women and men cannot be equal in their nature, nor can they be equal in duty. If you expect a woman to perform the same duties as a man, you will in fact be oppressing her. It is obvious that women are different from men physically, biologically and spiritually. It is therefore only normal that, arising from this difference in their natures, that there should be a difference in duties. For instance, men are stronger than women. In this respect, it is very difficult for a woman to do some of the work that a man does. This is not to be seen as an inadequacy of women. Women are generally more merciful, compassionate, intuitive and emotional when compared to men. In this respect, men cannot be compared to women in any way. Both sexes are equipped according to the necessities of their duties; this is the true justice. Therefore, instead of studying men and women as if they were on equal terms, we should evaluate women and men separately and according to their own particular natures.

Women have certain rights and duties based on the nature of their creation, and if women make use of these qualities they will then be able to obtain better results.

New generations are brought into this world by women and are brought up by them. Humanity gains good individuals through their efforts. It is a great kindness and wisdom of God that women have been equipped with such compassion when we consider that they are in charge of bringing up children. In this respect, among all the members of the family, women deserve the greatest respect. They are the educators, teachers, and the source of the family’s endurance and the peace of the home. Men are reassured by them. Children grow up under their compassionate wing, and are raised with healthy emotions, compassion, and strong values. If the mother lives a chaste life, then the children will be saved from degeneration, and a community formed of these children will be saved from oppression.

When we compare all the things that humans provide women with in the name of equality with those favors that God the Almighty provides, the former will be very small in comparison. Moreover, all the rights granted to women and all the effort expended on behalf of their gaining “equal rights” is as ridiculous as if we were to give a copper medal to someone whose chest was already covered in gold medals.

God has given everyone their own nature. With the granting of this nature he did not make anyone coarse or foolish. If he had granted any superflurous duties to people, then this would have been no more than an injustice or an act of oppression.

The tasks or duties that women do should be suited to their physical, psychological and spiritual nature. Offering a woman a job that she cannot handle, or employing her in a job that is not in her nature to accomplish, has nothing to do with equality or treating a woman as an equal; this is not a humanitarian approach. On the contrary, such behavior is little more than the forceful seizure of the majority of her rights.

A hadith of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), expresses the subject in a beautiful and elegant manner: “They had put a cow to yoke. It turned and said to its master: I have not been created for such jobs.” Rather, it is the ox that was created for such jobs.

In conclusion, everything has been created for a reason. For true justice to prevail, every creature should be employed according to its capabilities and according to the reason for its creation.

Women in politics

I attended a lecture by Iceland’s Olof Olafsdottir, who is the head of the division for Equality between Women and Men at the Council of Europe a very long title to carry along with the heavy responsibilities that follow

The topic was women in politics in the 43 Council of Europe member states. First of all, it is worth noting that voting rights for most European women were achieved only after World War I (1919 for the US). Statistics on the percentage of women in the government are extremely astonishing,1 although the trend is rather expected. As we move toward southern and eastern Europe, the female percentage decreases. Sweden, Finland, and Norway, are at the top of the list. Half of all Swedish government officials are women. On the other hand, Italy has only 8%, the lowest among European Union member countries.

Certain countries have undertaken serious reforms to increase female participation. For instance, Spain moved up to 21% when, in the post-Franco era, women took advantage of the rebirth of democracy. France, the symbol of equality, fraternity, and liberty, recently reformed its constitution to grant equal opportunities for women to participate in politics. Even though women had the right to vote and be elected since 1949, the French government was only 27% female as of 2001.

Political systems are a major factor. If political parties and politicians have too much power, the competition is tougher. As a consequence, it is believed that women find it too difficult to deal with process as well as with the power of the positions. Turkey and France are perfect examples of this phenomenon, and so women are likely to be discouraged by the ensuing harsh power struggle.

Paternal leave for fathers

Why does the decision-maker’s gender make a difference? Many people might pose this question. The most current and concrete answer is the case of Sweden, where 50% of the decision-makers are women. A paternal leave law exists in many democratic countries. However there is a major flaw almost all cases only the mother uses her paternal leave while the father does not interrupt his career. The Swedish Parliament passed a law offering a month-long paternal leave to the father that cannot be passed on to the mother. As a result, many fathers who had used the excuse that their jobs were more important and any interruption would be considered a major reversal suddenly decided to use this opportunity to be with their new-born children!

Another major result of the high female presence in the Swedish Parliament is the seen in legislation related to prostitution: both the prostitute and the customer are punished!

Cultural reasons for lower political participation in Muslim countries

Two related factors can account for the major gap between countries having high and low rates of women in their governments: democratic identity and culture. Efficient and older democracies have established a real democratic culture in which individuals are valued and politics is close to the people. Also, culture tends to affect the role of men and women immensely. For instance, Turkish women are very powerful in the household. The division of duties has developed according to Islamic teachings, which assigns specific social roles to men and women according to their nature. Women are more emotional, intuitive, and affectionate, and so are more fit to run the family and the household and to educate the children. Men, on the other hand, are responsible for struggling outside the house to maintain the family. Thus, in most Muslim-majority countries the percentage of women in politics is rather low. However, as the family structure is very strong, fewer social problems are observed.

Gender Equity in Qur’an

It was hard for me to accept this view until I realized that, according to the Qur’an:

– Men and women have the same spiritual human nature.

– Both genders received the divine breath, for they were created with the same human and spiritual nature.

– Both genders are dignified and are trustees of Allah on Earth.

– Woman is not blamed for humanity’s fall. Pregnancy and childbirth are not seen as punishments for eating from the forbidden tree. On the contrary, the Qur’an considers them to be grounds for love and respect due to mothers.

– Men and women have the same religious and moral duties and responsibilities, and both face the consequences of their deeds.

– The Qur’an does not state that one gender is superior to the other. Some mistakenly translate qiwamah (responsibility for the family) as superiority. The Qur’an makes it clear that the sole basis of superiority is piety and righteousness instead of gender, color, or nationality.

– The absence of women as Prophets or Messengers of Allah is due to the demands and physical suffering associated with such figures’ roles, not because of any spiritual inferiority.2

Conclusion

There is no evidence from the Qur’an to preclude women from leading a state. Islam does not forbid or discourage the education of women. On the contrary, Islam authorizes women to have careers in fields such as teaching and medicine. However, a woman’s most essential responsibility is to educate her children and raise a sound family. Raising children is a key social function, for a society’s future and efficient functioning depends on educated generations. Thus, from this perspective, a woman’s responsibility is rather significant and challenging.

I hope that those who are having a hard time with gender equality in Islam take the time to do a little research, because the most logical and convincing answers are there to be discovered.

Footnote

1. All statistics are from the 2001 Report of the Directorate General of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Women in Politics in the Council of Europe Member States.

2. Jamal A. Badawi, Gender Equity in Islam. Online at: www.iad.org/books/GEI.html.