Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an

by Asma Barlas

Does Islam call for the oppression of women? The subjugation of women in many Muslim countries is often used as evidence of this, while many Muslims read the Qur’an in ways that seem to justify sexual oppression and inequality. In this paradigm-shifting book, Asma Barlas argues that, far from supporting male privilege, the Qur’an actually affirms the complete equality of the sexes.

Offering a historical analysis of religious authority and knowledge, Barlas shows how, for centuries, Muslims have read patriarchy into the Qur’an to justify existing religious and social structures. In this seminal volume, she takes readers into the heart of Islamic teachings on women, gender and patriarchy, offering an egalitarian reading of Islam’s most sacred scripture.

This revised edition includes two new chapters, a new preface, and updates throughout.

Genres: Islam, Religion, Nonfiction, Feminism, Womens, History, Philosophy

352 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 31, 2002

About the author

Asma Barlas (born 1950), is a Pakistani-American writer and academic. Her specialties include comparative and international politics, Islam and Qur'anic hermeneutics, and women's studies. Barlas was one of the first women to be inducted into the foreign service in 1976. Six years later, she was dismissed on the orders of General Zia ul Haq. She worked briefly as assistant editor of the opposition newspaper The Muslim before receiving political asylum in the United States in 1983. Barlas joined the politics department of Ithaca College in 1991. She was the founding director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity for 12 years. She held Spinoza Chair in Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam in 2008.

Reviews

[Hamza · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll just come right out and say it: I had very mixed feelings about this book. It is certainly an important work, but I felt like I just could not get into some of the language used, first of all. The author used many terms with a slash right in the middle of them, like "sexual/textual" that confused me a bit. I suppose I cannot blame the author for my not having a background in her specialty, but I felt that the average Muslim would be left scratching their head as much as I was. Maybe I'm wrong.

I was also a bit taken aback by the way the author would almost cast aside ahadith, tafasir, and other extra-Qur'anic texts while then evoking "the Tradition" in the next breath when mentioning something such as 'A'isha's (RA) age at marriage. I do not believe the author was necessarily saying that ALL of these extra-Qur'anic materials are worthless, but it still seemed contradictory to me.

The author did bring up some valuable points about how tafasir and the opinions of early scholars, which were undoubtedly set in the context of patriarchal societies (since most societies are patriarchal), should not necessarily be taken as the end-all, be-all backdrop under which we should understand the Qur'an. Her assertion that many of the early commentaries examined the Qur'an aya (verse) by aya also rang true, and it is well known that many of them focused more on things like linguistics than deriving law. I fully agree with her idea that hermeneutics is an important way to read any text.

And yet there was just too much eschewing of traditional scholarship under the four established madhahib (schools of thought) for my taste. While Imam ash-Shafi'i was only human and therefore liable to make mistakes, his school was developed over centuries, with the opinions of his students and his students' students (and so on) being factored into the mix. As such, none of these schools are monolithic, and thus have been open to interpretation by scholars even into the present day.

While I do sympathize with the author's concerns and do not deny that many Muslims of today are misogynistic and ignorant of their own faith, I do not blame the classical study of Islam for this failure but rather the lack of study undertaken nowadays. The author would mention how ijtihad should not necessarily be closed while going on in the postscript to state that she did not claim to be a mujtahid. That statement confused me, since the entire work is essentially ijtihad.

Still, despite my misgivings about some of the author's statements, I really enjoyed this book and did not find her opinions on the ayat in question radically different from how I had already understood them. I owe that not to my own discernment but in fact to "traditional" Islamic scholars such as the late Mohamed Sa'id Ramadan al-Bouti (محمد سعيد رمضان البوطي). For more information on that, check out his book Women Between the Tyranny of the Western System and the Mercy of the Islamic Law. It's not perfect, but I think it covers a lot of the issues mentioned by the author of this book.

For further reading, I also recommend the recent book Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy by Prof. Jonathan A.C. Brown. This tackles the problem of early scholarship while staying true to the Islamic tradition. It acknowledges the fact that early scholarship was not infallible, but also denies the idea that we should eschew it or its extra-Qur'anic components (ahadith, ijma', qiyas) entirely. Again, I am not saying that Ms. Barlas was making such a claim in this work, but she seemed to come close a few times.

So, why four stars despite all of my issues with this book? Well, they are really minor nitpicks considering how much I enjoyed reading it, and I do think such a work by a female author is important in understanding how so many have just gotten it wrong and toed the patriarchal line. She is certainly an excellent writer, and perhaps I would have enjoyed this book even more if I was more of an intellectual. My opinion doesn't matter anyway. Read the book, but do not expect it to keep too closely to Traditional Islam. Also don't expect Ms. Barlas to bash Islam like so many other female authors from Islamic backgrounds have done lately. I don't know, just read it.

[Sofia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Asma Barlas finishes this book with a Post Script stating, "my objective in writing this book was to recover the scriptural basis of sexual equality in Islam and thereby to defend Islam against the claim, made by both Muslim conservatives and feminists, that it is a religious patriarchy that professes models of hierarchical relationships and sexual inequality". Without doubt she has truly met this objective academically, it's up to the people to realise this objective practically.

I myself am a Muslim woman who has been trained in traditional Islam and as such, her analysis of what she terms "Muslim conservative" positions and her deconstruction of these really struck me. These are not superficial arguments, but deeply constructed and rigorously authenticated by the Quran itself. To say it is a valiant piece of work is an understatement. I enjoyed how she dealt with the other end of the critical spectrum too, by challenging the accusations of (Western) feminists. She's not in this for making friends!

Just recently I had an exchange with a young Imam (Muslim leader) on the issue of domestic violence in the Muslim community. He had written a paper on the matter and I had been quite critical as I felt he missed the point. She covers marital issues in her book and analysis the Quranic verse that some have highlighted as a facilitator for DV against women. Her analysis was so much more superior and well thought through. Not only that but her approach is one that is holistic, taking the Quran in its entirety, not just piecemeal, isolated verse by isolated verse. This is crucial in the need to shift whole attitudes and understandings.

I think if anyone gives this less than five (maybe 4) stars, it's probably because they haven't been able to push through the highly academic vocabulary and the immensely scholastic approach she takes (This is no light read), or because the patriarchal readings and commentaries of the Quran have become so internalised that the reader is not yet ready to entertain her writings. If your aversion is due to the former I would urge you to soldier through it, what you get out of the book will be much more than what you put in. If it's because of the latter, I'd recommend you continue to read around and to allow observations of the world around you to let you make good sense of what she has written.

I had so many "mind blown" moments with this book and would highly recommend it. If you have ever wondered about women in Islam as an insider or outsider, this book is for you.

[Juliette · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those who think Islam doesn't make room for human rights (esp, womens rights) this book is a great insight into Islam, the Qur'an and its true meanings.

['Izzat Radzi]

Saya masuk kedalam perbahasan buku ini setelah melalui sedikit sebanyak buku lain yang mencorak dan membentuk pemikiran saya; kritik al-Hady mengenai konservatisme agama (khusunya dalam buku Asma ini, kaitan kitab tafsir dan zaman pemerintahan siapa dan bagaimana ia ditulis), kritik reductionisme agama-Quran kepada ritual oleh Syazreen; perbincangan idea Iqbal mengenai Divine Ontology dan terbaru Identiti Wanita dengan Quran oleh Ni’mat.

Maka tidak dapat tidak hal ini memberi satu kaca mata yang berbeza dalam mencemati dan menilai buku ini.
Pertamanya, beliau membuka lembaran perbahasan dengan teori kritik; hermeunatika dan teologi pembebasan (liberation theology). Hal ini sangat wajar bagi mempermasalahkan dan pengutaraan metode pembacaan Qur’an yang beliau laungkan.

Sebelum dikritik buku ini, wajar sekali dipuji akan perbincangan mengenai, misalnya (i) Divine Ontology, di-mana dalam tradisi Judeo-Krisitian misalnya, ideologi Father-Male yang mendasari pegangan/kepercayaan dibantah beliau dengan hujah-hujah yang kuat, daripada menggantikan Father-rule dalam kisah Nabi Ibrahim kepada God-Rule, ke doktrin Tauhid yang neutral, akar kepada Islam yang menolak sebarang bentuk patriaki. Hal ini penting kerana dalam tradisi agama Samawi lain diatas, Hawa misalnya dikaitkan sebagai punca pengeluaran Adam (dan secara tidak langsung seluruh Umat manusia) dari Syurga (lalu secara tidak langsung menyalahkan kaum Hawa secara pukal).
Dan sini kritik pertama berlaku. Beliau di-awal-awalnya adalah dalam nada ‘menolak sebarang bentuk rujukan’ kepada hadith, kitab tafsir dan sewaktu dengannya, kerana ulasnya, selain dari sifat renyah (memerlukan disiplin tertentu, lantas menjadikan ia eksklusif dan elitis), isi kandungannya sendiri mengutarakan kisah dan sifat misoginis terhadap wanita. Sebenarnya, apa yang perlu seperti selalu asatizah utarakan, lihat apa yang disebut (dalam tafsir), siapa yang menyebut (penulis kitab dan sahabat/tabi'in dalam matan) dan tidak lupa zaman ia ditulis, seperti Asma terangkan mengenai kaitan sebuah kitab tafsir dan zaman. Nah, bukankah dengan cara ini kita lebih bersikap adil dan bukan menolak buta begitu sahaja? Apabila kita lihat kembali, misalnya mengenai masalah Hawa ini, rujukan beliau (malah dalam masalah lain juga) masih bersifat sekondari; selain hanya bertumpu kepada Tabari dan Baydawi. Disini, saya cuba mengutarakan tafsir yang disampaikan oleh Maulana ‘Asri (yang menurut Farid Esack, aliran beliau Shah Wali Allah adalah aliran reformis-tajdid) ketika membahaskan mengenai [7:20]...فوسوس لهما الشيطان beliau dengan jelas bersikap egalitarian dengan menafsir Qur’an ini dengan kaedah Arab, yang dengan jelas menunjukkan Syaitan membisikkan kepada kedua-mereka, dan mereka berdua dengan kebolehan aqal fikiran (and will) memilih untuk makan buah dari pohon larangan tersebut. Dan ini datang dari seorang ulama’ ahl-hadith! Maka, sangatlah saya kira tidak padan akan beberapa pandangan kecil yang beliau tolak untuk menolak usaha ulama’ sebelum ini seluruhnya. Tidak ada ilmu yang lahir dari vakum!

Hal kedua yang menarik minat adalah perbicangan mengenai (ii) seks/ualiti, yang didalam termasuk ulasan mengenai kesetaraan (equity), kesucian (purity) dan rasa tanggungjawab dengan hubungan (chastity) dalam Bab 5. Hal ini kerana sekadar pembacaan dan penelitian sedikit sebanyak sebelum ini, perbincangan mengenai hal ini sangatlah mengecewakan (depressing) khususnya dalam falsafah Eropah, dari metode psikoanalisis Freudian-Lacanian, sekurang-kurangnya dari mazhab Žižek (Saya belum meneliti Foucault). Argumen yang Asma bentangkan adalah terdiri dari tradisi masyarakat, khususnya Yahudi (hal sama saya jumpa dalam buku
The Jewish Woman's Movement In England And The United States, 1881-1933) dimana setiap hari, di gereja mereka, golongan lelaki berdoa syukur tidak dilahirkan sebagai wanita. Dan pemikiran misoginistik yang menundukkan (submissive) dan melemahkan jiwa (internalizng the weakness) wanita ini yang 'diperangi' oleh Qur'an. Dan hal kesucian (purity) juga menarik untuk diteliti kerana dalam dunia pasca-modernisme ini, lebih-lebih dengan tradisi Barat/Eropah yang menggalakkan hubungan terbuka antara jantina, usulan menjaga darah dari bercampur (selain soal tanggungjawab) melalui hermeunatika Qur’an adalah terpakai kepada kedua-dua jantina, dan bukan hanya kepada wanita (dalam budaya slut-shamming misalnya, dan di penjuru satu lagi pembulian/memalukan orang yang suci (virgin) dari zina dsb). Asma dengan merujuk Badawi [Gender Equity in Islam 1995] mengatakan bahawa dalam Quran “menstrual taboo extends only to intercourse; it does not extend to sexual intimacy, nor does it call for social ostracization or confinement." h.162 Saya bersetuju dengan tanggapan ini -meskipun beliau kerap kali mengkritik bahawa pandangan sebegini muncul dalam tradisi Hadith- kerana misalnya, Maulana ‘Asri misalnya membawa pandangan Imam Bukhari berkenaan Fiqh ini dan berpandangan bahawa bukan sahaja dibolehkan perempuan Haidh masuk ke masjid, malah turut membaca Qur’an (contoh nyata adalah bagi Hafizah yang mahu menjaga hafazan-nya). Dan bila Asma mengutarakan polemik umur A’isyah berkenaan isu kahwin dengan kanak-kanak, saya tidak bersetuju apabila beliau merangkumkan perbincangan mengenai umur itu dengan “in studying ‘Ayesha, one therefore is studying “male intellectual history, nor a woman’s history, but reflections about the place of a woman, and by extension, all women, in exclusively male assertions about Muslim society”.” h.126 Entah apa yang ingin dicapai jika itu konklusi beliau akan polemik ini. Bagi pemula pada sesiapa yang berminat akan isu khusus ini, boleh dapatkan dua karya Dzulkhairi Mohd Noor.

Berkenaan bab 6 The Family and Marriage, saya kira adalah lanjutan dari bab 5 dari skop perbincangannya. Ia berdepan dengan masalah dalam perkahwinan; daripada poligami, nikah-cerai, 'rogol isteri' sehingga ke nusyuz (saya terjemahkan sebagai tidak berterima kasih kepada suami, rentetan sebab dibawah) dan memukul isteri (wife-beating). Pertamanya, saya bersetuju banyak perkara dalam bab ini, daripada kebahagian dan kasih sayang (sukun/sakinah) adalah peri-utama dalam sesebuah perkahwinan sehingga ke idea “the Qur’an does not present polygyny as a solution for economic problems, a wife’s infertility, or the need to fulfill male sexual needs” h.191 yang memualkan seperti yang pernah saya dengar dari seorang asatizah yang tidak perlu saya namakan sebut di masjid. Dan kedua, saya bersetuju akan perlunya persetujuan isteri dalam perhubungan kerana, mereka juga mempunyai keinginan (will) dan angin (mood) emosi. Dalam hanya menundukkan wanita dalam hal ini, adalah tidak patut kerana boleh sahaja kita menterbalikkan hal yang sama kepada sesuatu perkara yang misalnya tidak mahu dilakukan oleh pihak suami pada satu-satu masa (ambil contoh menonton bola/membeli belah). Oleh itu, apabila beliau menulis “If many men read these Ayat as a license to rape their wives or to abuse them, it may be because they are already abusing their wives and are seeking religious justification for their trangressions.” h.162 saya juga sama teringat apabila Olivier Roy mengatakan mengenai ISIS dan pengabsahan tindakan mereka, "It's the Islamification of radicalism that we need to investigate, not the radicalization of Islam."
Selain itu juga, perbincangan nikah bersyarat (prenuptial agreement/contract) wajar ditambah-baca dan difikir ulang.

Meskipun kritikan diatas, saya kira buku ini masih lagi bagus itu (dan akan diulang baca nanti selepas beberapa ketika sesudah menambah-baca mengenai wacana ini).

Malah, boleh kita tambah persoalan (yang beliau tidak utarakan) mengenai konsep wahyu kepada Maryam (dan konsep wahyu-kenabian), juga konsep-sosial masyarakat judeo-kristian dalam mendepani berita Maryam mengandung tanpa seorang suami, selain konsep menunduk/menahan diri dalam hubungan awam berlainan jantina-kaitan dengan naratif Yusuf a.s.

Update August 2019:

There are a few errors in the numbering of the ayah, if one felt compelled to check.

Errors

(based on accepted Arabic-romanisation):
(i) Page 73 Chapt 3: (Istihān) to (Istihsān)

Quranic verse:
(i) Page 16 Chapt 1: (5:14) to (5:13)
(ii) Page 16 Chapt 1: (5:44) to (5:41)
(iii) Page 96 Chapt 4: (33:91) to (23:91)
(iv) Page 97 Chapt 4: (5:19) to (5:17)
(v) Page 98 Chapt 4: (5:20) to (5:18)
(vi) Page 112 Chapt 4: (21:51-56) to (21:52-56)
(vii) Page 120 Chapt 4: (5:107) to (5:104)
(viii) Page 124 Chapt 4: (33:30) to (33:33)
(ix) Page 146 Chapt 5: (5:51) to (5:48)
(x) Page 155 Chapt 5: (5:6) to (5:5)
(xi) Page 157 Chapt 5: (24:30) to (24:30-31)
(xii) Page 180 Chapt 6: (16:55-60) to (16:57-59)
(xiii) Page 183 Chapt 6: (2:195) to (4:23)
(xiv) Page 190 Chapt 6: (4:1) to (4:2-3)
(xv) Page 191 Chapt 6: (4:125) to (4:3)
(xvi) Page 191 Chapt 6: (4:1) to (4:3)
(xvii) Page 194 Chapt 6: (65:5) to (65:6-7)
(xviii) Page 197 Chapt 6: (58:1) to (58:1-2)
(xix) Page 206 Chapt Postscript: (1:140) to (2:140)

[Asim Bakhshi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I initially wanted to give this book 4 stars but then I ended up giving an extra because I must have given 5 if I was women. This is an excellent all-encompassing text and not just another feminist reading of the Quran. Barlas makes an extremely strong case for unreading patriarchical readings of scripture by principally moving the onus of (mis)reading from the Quran to the reader who is interacting with the text through his own subjectivities. In my view, the work achieves a two dimensional success; one, against the misogynist and predominantly male oriented interpretations and two, against those modernist theories which blames the text itself for its misreading.

[Fadhilah Primandari · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am glad that I found this book. Since I was in middle school, I have been questioning the way Islam—or what is perceived to be Islam—positions women in regards to men; I still remember how I cried out of anger when I was 14 or 15 because I couldn’t seem to find satisfying answers to my questions—at that age, the easiest way to look for information was through Google; no wonder that all the answers I came across affirms the subordination of women to men!

The biggest question that I asked myself was, if Islam views men and women as equal, why does it prescribe men to have authority over women? Doesn’t that mean there is a hierarchy between men and women? Is it true that women must stay at home, blindly obey her husband or father, and not have freedom to work or have activities outside her home? Is it true that men have rights to sexual intercourse any time they wish, and their wives have the obligation to always yes? If my God is Ar-Raheem—the One who acts with extreme mercy and kindness—and Al-Wadud—the One who loves all of his creatures—then why does He prescribe for there to be subjugation upon one by the other?

As a debater, I have been exposed to explanations that our understandings of religions and holy texts are shaped by the context in which we read them, but I have yet to come across extensive explanations of how until I read this book. This book advocates for a holistic reading of the Qur’an: to distinguish the universal teachings from the particular, to understand the context in which each verse was revealed, and to recognize the audience that certain verses addressed. The author presents the discourse between the conservative views that wish to maintain the ways Muslims in the past interprets the Qur’an and that of the critical that wish to link religious teachings to temporal and spatial contexts, and argues for the latter. Because the Qur’an was revealed in times when the society was overwhelmingly patriarchal, many interpretations of the Texts and the process of gathering of the Ahadith were also patriarchal; thus we need to be critical and try to distinguish what the Texts convey from what Muslims—and public at large—read them to be. The author emphasizes the importance of Ijtihad—critical thinking—that has been long suppressed, both deliberately and unconsciously, by the state, scholars and the community.

This book does not only look at the temporal and spatial context in which the Texts were revealed as form of hermeneutics, but also advocates for a polysemous study of the Texts (including understanding analogies that were used) as meanings of words change in time. Through this book, I have found that not only certain interpretations of the Texts are misleading, but also that certain translations are as well. In doing so, the author pinpoints at verses that many of us use to accuse Islam as patriarchal.

The main message that this book brings is that Islam is egalitarian. The author extensively explains this message throughout the six chapters of the book, starting from how the father—or patriarch—is not an embodiment of God and how God is inherently different in nature to his creatures; to men and women being equal, both inside and outside marriage (and in doing so clarifies the process of the creation of mankind); to relationships between parents and children. Moreover, the author points at how the Qur’an specifically mentions the rights of women, from the status and rights of women being their own moral agents, to having the act of love towards your mother linked directly to your Taqwa to God, to having the testimonies of daughters valued enough by God to punish their fathers in the Day of Judgement, to women not being under any ownership (not even her husband or father!), to women not being subject to violence, to women having rights and protection in times of divorce. Although it is acknowledged that men and women do have their differences—the Qur’an specifically points to women being able to bear children inside her wombs—those differences do not render women being less of a human, nor does it attribute gender roles between men and women. The author calls for us to distinguish between sexual difference and differentiation.

This book does not only help to rethink how we read and interpret the Texts regarding the relations between men and women, but also religious teachings in general. The explanation in the first part of the book can be applied to many issues, from day to day activities, to conceptualizing the Shariah, to the act of violence in the name of religion. At the end of the book, the author delves into the question that I have been asking myself for long: “if God is perfect, and God’s Speech/Messages are also perfect, then why does it allow for misinterpretations and, consequentially, harms?” The discourse on the matter and answer the author presents has helped me formulate my own answer to the question, which satisfies me—at least for now.

Although there are still some questions I have in mind pertaining to certain words in the Qur’an, this book nonetheless is a good book and provided me a framework to continue my research on the matter. I recommend this book to not only those who are interested in Islam’s view of men and women, but also to those wishing to broaden their perspectives in reading religious teachings.

[Fadillah · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than that, it also assumes that in order to be men's awliya, women must have the freedom, right, and authority to be able to guide them and be their "custodians." In other words, the notion of mutual guardianship presupposes a structure of male-female authority that does not privilege males. As things stand, however, a majority of Muslims read another Qur'änic injunction as saying that men are "in charge" of women and their guardians. However, to accept this interpretation—which can be questioned on various grounds (as I argue in chapter 7)—would mean letting go of the truly radical nature of the concept of awliya' and its far-reaching social ramifications for how men's authority could be structured in Muslim societies. Even though the Qur'änic conception of mutuality that is explicit in the term awliya' necessitates an absence of gender hierarchies and inequalities based in the idea of sexual differentiation, Muslims continue to read all three (hierarchy, inequality, and differentiation) into the Qur'än by differentiating between the moral and the social realms. They concede that the Qur'än treats women and men similarly, hence equally, in the moral realm (conceived as the realm of worship, or 'ibadah), but they argue that the Qur'än treats women and men differently, hence unequally, in the social realms by giving them different kinds of rights in marriage, divorce, and so on.
- The Quran, Sex/Gender and Sexuality : Believing Women in Islam - Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of Quran by Asma Barlas
.
.
Excellent book, I must say. Asma Barlas left no stone unturned in her research to unread patriarchal interpretation of the Quran. The book consisted 8 chapters which analysed Quran in its textual, epistemological and together with critical outlooks from philosophical, both conservative and feminism POV. Asma encouraged Muslims to not simply accept the current translation of Quran which mostly served the agenda of Muslim Men at that time but to re-learn why it was being interpreted in that manner and how some has been misogynistic in nature despite Quran prohibition on decoding its message wrongly. While Quran strongly preserved the status for both men and women equal specifically in terms of ‘Ibadah’ and ‘good deed’ but some men decided to insert their agenda of highlighting that women status and action is somehow inferior. They are being emboldened by some (questionable) Hadith, Ijma and Ijtima rulings that used to further the agenda of pushing women further behind - specifically in resuming the Patriarchal Interpretation of the Quran and masking it as God’s exact word. I truly believe that this book should re-read for a second time as there are some parts that are too technical especially when they discussed the exegesis of the Quran. I still have to applaud the author’s attempt in simplifying some of the methods on how to comprehend the literal text of the Quran to the readers. She also put on a discourse on why the context could have meant different things which honestly such an eye opening analysis. BUT As Much as i want to elaborate each chapter, i believe i may do the disservice towards her concise dissection on the Patriarchal Aspect of the Quran. What i would do below this is to share some excerpts in each chapter to show how brilliant her writing in trying to untangle the complexity of the Qur'anic hermeneutics. Overall, A must read for muslim women who’ve wanted to ask and discuss certain things in the Quran but afraid that their questions might caused a controversy - I truly believe Asma Barlas wrote this book for us.
.
.
1. The Qur'än and Muslim Women:
Reading Patriarchy, Reading Liberation
- [ ] If we need to keep in mind the historical contexts of the Qur'än's revelation in order to understand its teachings, we also need to keep in mind the historical contexts of its interpretations in order to understand its conservative and patriarchal exegesis. The most definitive work—not only in Qur'änic exegesis but also in law and Islamic/Muslim tradition-is considered by many Muslims to have been produced during the first few centuries of Muslim history. Here it is important to note that what is nominally called "the" Islamic tradition has many, and sometimes contradictory, tendencies within it and is, moreover, "a synthetic rather than a 'natural' product, bearing clear signs of selective endorsement," as al-Ghazali argued in the twelfth century. In this context, he pointed out that traditions do not pass into the present "unprocessed and unmediated... Instead, someone has to make decisions about which aspects of the past are non-essential and thus allowed to drop out, and which elements of the present are consistent with the past and thus eligible for admission into the sanctum of tradition" (quoted in Jackson 2002, 20, 24). The reason Muslims seemed not to recognize this fact, according to al-Ghazali, had less to do with the imitativeness of tradition itself than with "that blindness that condemns people to being led around by others (taglid)" (Jackson, 88.)
.
2. Texts and Textualities: The Qurän, Tafsir, and Ahadith
- [ ] As a result, legal norms often came to be based on the opinions of the Prophets Companions, even when these opinions were not based on his Sunnah. Not only does the Shariah not always adhere to the Sunnah, then, but it embodies "medieval principles of reason and objects of public good that may no longer be valid today" (An-Naim 1990, 71). For instance, its restrictive stance on human rights may have been "justified by the historical context, [but] it ceases to be so justified in the present drastically different context" (170). Also, implementing the Sharlah can curtail the rights not only of women under secular law but also those of men due to the extensive power given to political and state rulers (9). We therefore need to rethink the Shariah, says An-Naim, a process that is of special concern to women because its hold is "strongest in family law [due to] the greater degree of detailed regulation of these fields in the Quran and Sun-nah" (32).20 Rethinking the Sharah requires clarifying the "Islamicity" of certain principles, and one way to do so is to make sure that they are "con-sistent with the totality of the Quran and Sunnah"; the problem, however, is that there are inconsistencies between "certain verses of the Quran and Sunnah" (45). Mahmud Mohamed Taha," as An-Naim argues, believed that the tensions can be resolved by drawing on the Meccan surahs, which embody "the fundamental values of justice and the equality and inherent dignity of all human beings" (Taha 1987, 54). According to Taha, it was only in the aftermath of the Prophet's migration to Madina that the Qur'än and Sunnah "began to distinguish between men and women," and it is in this period that the Qur'än's "discriminatory verses" were revealed. This is why he wanted Muslims to implement the Meccan surahs, which jurists view as having been abrogated.
.
3. Intertextualities, Extratextual Contexts:
The Sunnah, Sharỉ'ah, and the State
- [ ] In effect, the method Muslims sacralize as Islamic nullifies the distinction Muslim theology has always made between "divine speech and its earthly realization." This so-called Islamic method collapses the Qur'än with its male-authored exegesis, displacing the Qur'än's authority by the authority of (conservative) male exegetes. In this way, it confuses God's authority with the authority of interpreters of sacred knowledge, thus infringing on the cardinal tenet of God's absolute sovereignty, a function of Gods indivisible unity (Tawhia).Ironically, like other aspects of religious knowledge, this method of interpreting the Qur'än began as the opposite of what it eventually became. It originated in attempts—by the ubiquitous al-Shafi in the second/eighth century—to make the Sunnah paradigmatic, but it ended up generating a paradigm that enabled its users to further their own hegemony instead. For al-Shafi, the problem was how to authorize interpretive variations within an Islamic framework. His solution was to link variations to the same textual sources: the Qur'än and the Sunnah. However, the use of this inter-textual method in the hands of various schools in the following centuries came to preclude variations, for reasons that Wheeler (1996) considers in detail but which are too complex to condense meaningfully here. The point is that a method devised to protect the integrity of the Qur'än and the Sunnah instead enabled its users to extend "authority from a posited [canonical text)" to themselves thus permitting them to install "a paradigm that authorizes [their] own interpretive privilege" (237, 226). This method has developed into a system of scholarly lineage, or nasab, in which one's authority derives not so much from knowledge of the subject matter or the merits of one's work as from one's association with a specific interpretive community and one's acceptance of a thin consensus of medieval jurists. It also rests on an epistemology that, by confusing divine speech with its human interpretations, undermines the doctrine of Tawhid and enables and legitimizes the displacement of misogyny onto the divine.
.
4. The Patriarchal Imaginary of Father/s:
Divine Ontology and the Prophets
- [ ] Given the Qur'än's unrelenting rejections of God's sacralization as Father, it seems unconscionable to read Islam as a theological patriarchy. If God can only be a patriarch or God can only be patriarchalized—to the extent that God can, in fact, be sacralized as Father-then how can God's self-disclosure in the Qur'än be interpreted as providing the basis for either patriarchalized views of God or theories of father-right/rule based in such views? If God is not Father in Heaven in either a literal or a symbolic sense, how can fathers represent their rule on earth as replicating the model of divine patriarchy? And if—as the Qur'än makes clear—we cannot represent fathers' rule as replicating God's rule, in what sense is God "on the side" of fathers or of patriarchy? Indeed, if God is not father, son, or hus-band, in what sense is God male ("He")? Ironically, while Muslims reject misrepresentations of God as father/ male, most see no problem in continuing to masculinize God linguistically and to propagate, on the basis of their linguistic references, theories of male rule/privilege over women. One therefore needs to inquire into the paradox of masculinist conceptions of God and the idea of a symbolic continuum between God's rule and man's in the absence of the Qur'änic view of God as Father/male.
.
5. Abraham's Sacrifice in the Qur'än:
Beyond the Body
- [ ] It is within the context of these teachings that I understand God's rescue of Abraham from his father, and of Abraham's son from him, and I consider the two to be very different. For one, the sons and fathers could not be more different themselves. Both sons, for instance, are monotheists, but one falls victim to his unbelieving father's depredations, while the other submits of his own volition to the God of his fathers. Both face death, but for different reasons and at the hands of very different fathers. One father (Abraham's) tries to kill his son for his faith, and the son has no choice in the matter. In contrast, the other father (Abraham), while also ready to sacrifice his son as a matter of faith, can only proceed with it at his son's expressed wish. If these differences did not exist, Abraham would have been no different from his own father, and the story of his near-sacrifice of his son would have proved little more than the omnipotence of fathers in patriarchies. How-ever, the morals of the two stories are not the same, and that is the second way in which they are different. One reveals an outright conflict between obeying God and obeying fathers, especially those who are "devoid of wisdom and guidance" (2:170 [Ali, 67]). The message of the other story is that in order for God's will to be done, believers must submit to it voluntarily. And since God is not Father, one cannot view God's rule (monotheism) as a divine surrogate for father's rule (patriarchy). To the contrary, and borrowing from Derrida (1995), there is an "insoluble and paradoxical contradic-tion" between father's rule and God's rule. That is why Abraham's story can be read as "a moral allegory about the consensual and purposive nature of Faith, its primacy over kinship and blood, the existential dilemmas that can result from submitting to God's Will (specially where it comes into conflict with one's own life, and, not least, the insignificance of the father's will in comparison to God's Will" (Barlas 2002, 116).
.
6. The Qur'än, Sex/Gender, and Sexuality:
Sameness, Difference, Equality
- [ ] It seems that sex as presented in the Qur'än is an ontological as well as a sociological category; at the same time, however, the Qur'än does not use sex to construct ontological or sociological hierarchies that discriminate against women. Thus, the Quãn recognizes sexual differences, but it does not adhere to a view of sexual dif ferentiation; put differently, the Qurän recognizes sexual specificity but does not assign it gender symbolism.18 Since the Qur'än does not invest biological sex with content or meaning, being male or female does not in itself suggest a particular meaning of gender. And to the extent that it is difficult to theorize a determinate relationship between sex and gender based on the Qur'än's teachings, it is also incorrect to claim that it ascribes sex/ gender hierarchies or inequalities to biological sex. Conversely, while the Qur'än recognizes sexual differences, it does not sexualize difference itself; in other words, it does not define women in terms of attributes that are unique only to women, or suggest that they are opposites of men or that they manifest the lower aspects of creation. Nor does it define men in terms of attributes that are unique only to men,° or suggest that they are opposites of women or that they alone manifest the higher aspects of creation. Indeed, Wadud (1999, xxi) argues that there is no "concept of woman" or of "gendered man" in the Qurän. As such, whatever differences exist between women and men "could not indicate an inherent value" because, if they did, the concept of "free will would be meaningless" (35).
.
7. The Family and Marriage: Retrieving the Qur'än's Egalitarianism
- [ ] In fact, it is questionable whether daraba actually refers to striking a wife, even symbolically. Rafi Ullah Shahab (1993, 231), for instance, says daraba also means "to prevent." On his reading, the ayah is telling the husbands to "leave [the wives] alone in their beds and prevent them from going outside of houses." In support of his reading, he points out that the Qur'än provides for similar treatment of lewd wives in 4:15. However, while Shahab reads the ayah as pertaining to lewd behavior, Hassan (1999, 355) has an entirely different understanding, not only of daraba, but of the second half of the ayah as well. She argues that the word "salihat, which is translated as righteously obedient,' is related to the word salahiat, which means 'capability' or 'potentiality,' and not obedience." As such, she takes it to be a reference to women's child-bearing potential, suggested also by the word ganität, which refers not only to obedience but also to a water container (a metaphor for the womb). She thus reads this ayah as referring to "women's role as child-bearers" and argues that only if all the women rebel against this role must they be disciplined by the community, not their husbands. This does not imply random acts of violence, however, because in a "legal context" the word daraba "means 'holding in confinement" (Hassan, 355-56). Her reading not only accords with Shahab's interpretation of daraba as confinement, but it is also more in line with the Qur'än's counsel to husbands to deal kindly with their wives, even those who are their enemies or whom they hate.
.
8. Secular-/Feminism and the Qur'än
- [ ] Ali cites Farid Esack's observation that the Qur'än's "essen-tial audience is males," while women "are essentially subjects being dealt with—however kindly—rather than being directly addressed" (quoted in Ali 2006, 125-26). However, whereas Esack calls women "subjects" even in such instances, Ali argues that the Qur'än objectifies and otherizes them. Neither one, however, defines what they mean by "subjects." However, if what makes men subjects is that the Qur'än speaks to them, then it speaks to women as well. If, on the other hand, what makes men subjects is that the Qur'än speaks to men about women, then those yat are less than o.1 percent of the text. Moreover, it speaks to men "in the present or present continuous tense, as if they already are in authority over women, and not in the imperative or future tense, as if they should always be so" (Barlas 2008, 25; italics in the original). For the Qur'än to have recognized where authority resided in the patriarchy to which it first spoke is not evidence that God treats women as objects. After all, God made both men and women khalifa (vice-regents) and one another's awliya' (custodians, guides, protectors). If anything, the Qur'än's teachings about moral individuality assume that men and women are both "epistemological, thinking subjects" and selves who are the "locus of subjective experience";" that is, individuated, self-reflexive people capable of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. If Ali has a different understanding of what it means to be a subject, she should clarify it. Or, she could explain why both subjects and objects would be called khalifa and awliya'.

[Naeem · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this in the manuscript form and felt that it would make the author an international success. It has.

Rather than a review, I would like merely to describe it. It battles on two fronts: against feminists who might like to think that Islam is anti-women; and Muslims who might like to think that Islam gives them license to subordinate women.

The core of the analysis is the idea that God created woman not, as in Christianity, from the rib of man. Rather, that God creates men and women simultaneously and as ontologically different. And, that this is God's way of showing humans how to understand, respect, and celebrate difference.

My own small difference with the author's world view is that, given that God's words must be interpreted by humans, why do we need to concern ourselves with original text? I still worry about this question. And I pose it for all sacred texts, including those that pass as "secular" -- like various constitutions.

[Amani · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can’t even form a coherent sentence to explain how much I loved this book.

As a practicing Muslim (born and raised) and a feminist, some verses of the Quran always made me uneasy. I love my religion but I always resented the Quran for its patriarchal verses, completely forgetting and overlooking the fact that our patriarchal understanding of these verses is completely on our parts and never something to blame Quran for.

Barlas helped me see that. She explored so many parts that are in fact anti-patriarchal in Quran, had a different, new, and more logical reading to the verses that are most celebrated by Muslim misogynists (wife-beating, polygyny, father-rule...), and proved that “ijtihad” is a door that must never be closed in Islam.

I’d give this book a hundred stars if I can because not only it offered new, better reading and interpretation of Quran, but Barlas gave convincing arguments, a better interpretation methodology, presented different opinions and pointed out the ones that are closer to Islam, God, and Quran, and then leaving it all to the reader’s mind and faith to pick the ones they find more logical and closer to Allah.

Definitely recommend reading this and especially for Muslim women who are subjected to misogyny and patriarchy in the name of Allah and the Prophet (PBUH).

[Ali Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is women’s inequality supported by the Qur’an? Do men have the exclusive right to interpret Islam’s holy scripture? In her best-selling book Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an, Asma Barlas argues that, far from supporting male privilege, the Qur’an actually encourages the full equality of women and men. She explains why a handful of verses have been interpreted to favor men and shows how these same verses can be read in an egalitarian way that is fully supported by the text itself and compatible with the Qur’an’s message that it is complete and self-consistent.

A Brief Introduction presents the arguments of Believing Women in a simplified way that will be accessible and inviting to general readers and undergraduate students. The author focuses primarily on the Qur’an’s teachings about women and patriarchy.

She shows how traditional teachings about women’s inferiority are not supported by the Qur’an but were products of patriarchal societies that used it to justify their existing religious and social structures.

The author's hope is that by understanding how patriarchal traditionalists have come to exercise so much authority in today’s Islam, as well as by rereading some of the Qur’an’s most controversial verses, adherents of the faith will learn to question patriarchal dogma and see that an egalitarian reading of the Qur’an is equally possible and, for myriad reasons, more plausible.

[Hestia Istiviani · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read in English but this review is in Bahasa Indonesia

In writing this book, I have wanted not only to challenge oppressive readings of the Quran but also to offer a reading that confirms that Muslim women can struggle for equality from within the framework of the Quran's teachings, contrary to what both conservative and progressive Muslims believe.

Kalimat yang aku kutip itu ada pada bagian prakata. Yang membuatku semakin yakin untuk "yasudah, mari kita baca."

Asma Barlas menulis hasil observasi dan studinya dengan cukup baik. Hanya saja, karena banyak sekali catatan perut (running note), membaca buku ini membutuhkan konsentrasi sendiri. Aku bahkan beberapa kali mengabaikannya karena sedikit pusing dalam mencerna ide yang ia tawarkan (selain memang, pemahamanku tentang posisi perempuan di agama Islam masih dangkal).

Barlas membagi buku ini menjadi 3 bagian: Texts, Contexts and Religious Meaning; God, the Prophets, and the Fathers; Unreading and Rereading Patriarchy. Intinya ialah Barlas ingin mengajak pembaca untuk unlearn dan relearn apa yang mereka pahami mengenai perempuan dalam tataran Islam. Salah satunya adalah menelisik ulang apa yang sebenarnya tertulis dalam kitab suci. Karena jangan-jangan, penafsiran yang langgeng hingga kini sesungguhnya bias gender (karena ditafsirkan oleh laki-laki dan secara turun temurun tafsir itu terus berguling hingga dianggap bahwa tafsir itulah yang paling benar tanpa kita mencoba untuk mengkritisinya).

The nexus between state power and knowledge is, of course not unique to Islam. Bandali Jawzi argued in the 1930s that "interpretations that [become] canonized as knowledge, to be passed down through generations of power in the institutions which produced them" (quoted in Sonn 1996, 9).

Selain kajian berdasarkan hukum dalam Islam, Barlas juga memadukan dengan teori-teori filsafat, Jangan kaget kalau tiba-tiba ada nama barat seperti Derrida atau filsuf lainnya. Hal ini membantu pembaca yang barangkali belum kenal dengan Islam untuk paham mengenai tafsiran.

Secara garis besar, Believing Women in Islam bukanlah bacaan mudah. Kalau disandingkan dengan Amina Wadud, sama-sama berat dan cukup bikin kepala pening. Tetapi sekalinya membaca buku ini, rasanya kita malah tahu bahwa masih ada banyak hal yang kita belum tahu. Malah ada hal-hal yang seharusnya bisa kita pertanyakan terlebih dahulu ketimbang menerimanya begitu saja hanya karena itu merupakan tafsiran.

[Sedighe Vazehi · Rating 3 out of 5]

سوال اصلی نویسنده در این کتاب اینه که آیا میشه قرائتی از قرآن داشته باشیم که برابری و یکسانی دو جنس زن و مرد در اون پذیرفته شده باشه و آزادی خواهانه باشه؟ ( در آموزه های مختلف قرآن از خدا، خلقت، هستی شناسی، تمایلات جنسی، ازدواج و...) یا متن قرآن و به تبع اون دین اسلام نابرابری و ستم به زنان رو آموزش میده و روا میداره؟ (یعنی از پدرسالاری و مردسالاری دفاع میکنه و مردان رو تجسم خدا میدونه)

* تا به اینجای کتاب (ابتدای فصل پنج) بنظرم دو نقد مهم نسبت به محتوا وجود داره: اول اینکه نویسنده داره با ارزشهای امروزی -برابری- متن مربوط به ۱۴۰۰ سال پیش و سنتی که در طول زمان شکل گرفته رو قضاوت میکنه و اصرار داره بگه اون ارزش دراون زمان وجود داشته و دوم اینکه با وجود اینکه بر فهم بستر تاریخی بسیار تاکید میکنه و محافظه‌کاران رو به شدت نقد میکنه که فهم تاریخی ندارند، خودش هم در مواردی در فهم قرآن و ذهنیت پیامبر دچاراین مشکل شده و به نوعی از برخی آموزه‌های قرآن حرف میزنه که انگار نه تنها هیچ تاثیری از اطراف نمیپذیرفته بلکه ایده‌هایی که به هیچ وجه در ذهنیت جوامع اونزمان نبوده رو مطرح میکنه و این ایده رو در ذهن پیامبر هم مفروض میگیره.*
🔹️🔹️
کتاب تمام شد و امتیاز واقعی ۲.۵ هست بنظرم.

[Fadoua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interpreting religious texts, in particular the Qur'an, has been the work of men for centuries. Women are excluded from contributing to the Tafsir. Although, women participated actively in the creation of religious knowledge in the early decades of Islam (the prophet's wife Aisha as example), their opinions have been excluded for a long time.

What are the consequences of the absence of women's voices? Isn't it one important reason of the patriarchal reading of the Qur'an? Isn't it a reason of the understandings of Qur'an that teach sexual inequality and segregation? What if women participate in Tafsir communities? Won't this suggest a balanced reading and understanding of the Qur'an and avoidance of misreadings the verses related to women?

In her book “Believing women in Islam”, Prof. Asma Barlas explains how Qur'an is read in ways that seem to justify sexual oppression, inequality, and patriarchy. She, first, discusses and criticizes the different traditional methods of generating the meanings from Qur'an. She introduces the concept of hermeneutics to observe Qur'an's interpretation. Hermeneutics is a theory that deals with interpretation of religious scriptures and advocates that “it is not enough to ask what we know about religion, but equal attention must be paid to how we come to know what we know”. Besides, she re-reads for us the Qur'an position on a wide variety of issues that concern Muslim women, for instance, the relationships father/daughter and husband/wife. She shows that Qur'an can be read in different way that makes it a book of liberation for women.

[Sajal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reread in 2019: Rounding up my rating to 5 stars.

You would think that having to challenge multiple patriarchal practices and interpretations of Qur'an would require someone thousands of pages of scholarly work, but Barlas manages to do so in around 200 pages. That, in itself, blows my mind. I initially gave this book a 4 star rating because I thought the book was dry at times, but mostly that the academic writing could be a barrier for new readers who are just trying to learn about sexual ethics in Islam. But you know what, don't let that stop you. This book is a special one and it deserves all the eyeballs that it can get.
________

Original review:

*I read this for a class*

I know this isn’t for everyone. But holy crap, this was for me. Throughout Believing Women in Islam, Barlas essentially challenges “the widespread tendency to blame Islam for oppressing Muslims rather than blaming Muslims for misreading Islam”. She calls out those who have “monopolized the meaning of God’s word”, which invariably reinforces systematic patriarchy. (Something that plagues more than just Islam, I bet).

She explores certain Islamic cultural traditions, Shari’a Law, questionable Ahadith, and uses the Quran to prove them un-Islamic. I’m in awe! And her arguments in favour of reading the Quran as a holistic text, thereby refraining from taking ambiguous Ayah’s out of context, has me in complete agreement.

This would have received 5/5 if it wasn’t for the fact that I found the writing to be dry at times. So, 4/5 it is. Would highly recommend!

[Ify · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Asma Barlas has written a wonderful scholarly work (which may not be the easiest read but readers should stick with it) on her view of the Quran and Islam as egalitarian and antipatriarchal. Barlas challenges the methodology by which conservative mostly male interpretative communities empowered by state actors have read in patriarchal themes in the Quran. She also challenges some Western/feminist critiques of Islam trying to find a middle way between the two that remains faithful to the central principle of the oneness of God and the dignity of women and men as equals before God.

[Rania · رانية · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mind-blowing. And the postscript even more so. Halfway through the book, I started realising I would be finishing it too soon, but I couldn't keep my hands off it. Barlas' sentences are woven with delicacy, yet sureness. Simply marvellous!

[Humera · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does Islam call for the oppression of women?

As a Muslim growing up in a Western society, the main objection I have directly encountered from others towards Islam is about its treatment of women.

Some countries have laws to prevent women from certain aspects of self-autonomy and are apparently justifiable because of what the Qur’an’s stance is on women’s rights. Some have also read the Qur’an and interpreted it with the argument that, since the Qur’an mentions that women are physically weaker than male counterparts (interpretation taken from Qur’an 3:36), they are therefore inferior and deficient in comparison to men, and therefore separate rights must be established for them in what they can and cannot do.

This grants an opportunity for many to interpret the Qur’an in a patriarchal format, and also suggest that the Qur’an would justify sexual oppression.

As Professor Asma Barlas argues in this book, this is not the case. Interpreting religious texts (in particular the Qur’an) has mostly been done by men for centuries. The consequence of an absence of women’s involvement in reading and analysing the Qur’an’s message would definitely have an effect on how many would perceive what the Qur’an (and therefore Islam) would teach about women and their rights.

Barlas discusses and criticises previous patriarchal interpretations of the Qur’an which justify sexual inequality and the advocacy of the patriarchy, but then also introduces a hermeneutic perspective on how to observe the Qur’an’s teachings.

She also goes into detail on the Qur’an’s perspective on the patriarchy as well as egalitarianism, and also discusses various topics relating to women’s rights in Islam, as well as feminism and sexuality.

This book isn’t the easiest read, but it’s definitely worth reading. Although I knew Islam did not advocate for the oppression of women and was aware of many Islamic rights in support of women, this book really deconstructed a lot for me and made me fully aware of the Qur’an’s egalitarian teachings.

Overall, I definitely recommend reading this book. It may take a while to finish, but it is definitely worth it to fully understand the Qur’an’s stance on women’s rights - it’s truly essential reading, especially if you are a Muslim and want to learn more about women in Islam.

There is also another abridged edition of the same name (but also titled ‘A Brief Introduction’) which is also worth reading for a concisely summarised approach of the same key themes that Barlas discusses in this book, but also with less academic language for easier reading and understanding.

[Muneeza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like every other Muslim woman, I’ve grown up reading and listening to misogynistic interpretations of the Quran but instead of internalizing them or rejecting Islam entirely, they made me curious and led me to come up with my own version of religion (which interestingly enough, the author does too and justifies a critical reading leading to every person finding their own meaning in the verses).

Asma Barlas goes about methodically and tears down every argument set forth by the earliest (and biased) translators and teachers of Islam. She even goes as far to point out that the fact most translations use male pronouns for Allah, are committing a form of blasphemy since it has been repeated again and again in the text that Allah is neither male nor female.

Several ayats of the Quran are taken out of context and presented in a vacuum when the book of supposed to be read as a whole. Why would a scripture continuously emphasizing the importance of human rights and our duties to others humans preach violence or discrimination against 50% of humankind? Why would a Muslim who believes no one but Allah has power or control over us want to dominate and rule over women of his household?

These are some questions that Barlas raises which most scholars will not have answers to. There have been several important women in Islamic history and they have influenced the Quran in some way too (Umme Salma asked The Holy Prophet why the revelations do not address women and the next day an ayat that talks about both men and women was revealed). Not only that but a lot of people forget that Allah spoke directly to two women (Hazrat Maryam RA and Hazrat Asiyah RA).

One entire chapter talks about how the Quran never establishes a difference between the sexes and talks about their sameness when it comes to sexuality (both men and women are prescribed modesty). With heavy proof and undeniable logic like this, it is hard not to accept that indeed Islam preaches equality and has been misinterpreted by Muslim men.

[Samantha Feistritzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a book I’d recommend to a casual reader (she has a much shorter summary that’s often assigned in intro to religion college courses that I would recommend), but for my own purposes and journey, it was a powerful read.

“While the text is the source of meaning, it is our responsibility as readers to create meanings that cohere with our conceptions of god.”

“In effect, morality is not the absence of evil, or of ambiguity, or of temptation; it is the willingness to choose what is right in the face of ambiguity, and temptation, and evil in the interest of leading morally purposive lives as individuals and as communities."

"The distinction between religion and our knowledge of religion allows us to posit religion as a perfect and complete system and our knowledge of it as incomplete and also temporally and culturally bound, and to advocate, on this basis, for the latter's continual reform."

[Neelam · Rating 5 out of 5]

incredibly dense read but a profound scholarly reflection on how the Quran has been misogynistically read, interpreted and enforced in muslim thought and simulataneously orientalised through the “feminist” western gaze.

[naoual · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very reassuring and insightful read✨glad I read it!

[Saif Elhendawi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very inspiring read, Barlas is a brilliant academic and scholar. Going through her work, one is inspired by the comprehensive way she covers the history of patriarchal interpretation, forms her arguments against it and chooses her language. I personally really enjoy watching someone who is good at what they do, and Barlas showcases this fully throughout the book.

When it comes to the actual arguments that she makes, they are quite impressive and in my opinion very solid. She makes a case for the textual polysemy of the Quran but maintains that this shouldn't lead to interpretive relativism. As in that multiple interpretations are possible but they are not all of equal worth and value. Another core argument at the center of her work is that theology matters to Quranic hermeneutics. Meaning that when we think of Allah as just, then The Word, the Quran, can't promote inequality or tyranny. This way she integrates common attributes and thoughts about God from Islamic theology into her arguments for interpreting the Quran. When it comes to dislodging patriarchal interpretations of the Quran, she believes that Islamic monotheism (tawheed) is liberatory for women by dislocating father and husband rule and theories of male sovereignty. Maybe, the most important argument in the book, however, is her promotion of constant radical revolution in terms of our understanding and interpretation of religion. She furthers the idea that Islam is a revolutionary movement at heart, it came up in opposition to patriarchy, traditions, and orthodoxy. Thus, it should be a central tenet of this religion to remain progressive and radically opposed to these elements of "jahiliya". These are but a small sample of many great arguments, interpretations and ideas that she explores in the book. It would take too long for me to list all the ideas that I enjoyed, so it might be easier to present the main thing that I take issue with. I think she comes down too hard on the traditions of Hadith and dismisses them too rapidly. In her defense though, this book is not concerned with reinterpretation of Hadith, or even a critical analysis of its history and tradition. She mentions it only in passing to establish her own arguments for the primacy of the Quran, which I completely agree with. As in I do agree with her that the Quran should be at the center of Islamic theology and ideology rather than its traditional exegesis. Her critique of the patriarchal traditions of interpretation are valid. From a hermeneutics point of view it is a huge problem that we divide the text and don't approach it holistically. Furthermore, this goes directly against what the Quran teaches us about reading it. After all, reading the Quran, the way it instructs to do so, seems quite obvious.

I think the fact that this book is written in English, uses a lot of Western feminist frameworks, and difficult academic language makes it unapproachable for the majority of Muslim readers. This makes one wonder who she thinks her audience is, and she is aware of this problem. She is stuck in a difficult position where she will be attacked by feminists, secular academics, and defenders of patriarchal orthodoxy. This is not really a problem with the book though, but the politics around it and how one can use it to bring change to the Muslim world at large. By the end I just felt like I wish I could reach out to the author and tell her "I am sold, you are right, I feel for you, and I hope your arguments reach a bigger audience, how do you think we should do this?". However, it is not her responsibility to give us a manual for political action, she is simply a brilliant academic.

Overall, an amazing, difficult and challenging work that should definitely be read not just by Muslims but those interested in textual analysis, feminism, and the role of sacred texts in religious societies.

[Presley Abdul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Asma Barlas definitely knows what she is talking about. "Believing Women" in Islam is an immensely valuable book, which has thoroughly researched and analyzed Qur'anic exegeses in a multi-faceted method that she carefully details. The book itself offers readers with past experience regarding hermeneutics and the Qur'an to read the book in a non-linear fashion. However, I did not follow that advice, having had a very minuscule background knowledge of traditional exegeses and hermeneutics. Barlas offers readers the chance at an anti-patriarchal reading by reading in front of the Qur'an and behind it; in addition, she discusses the intertextual, intratextual, and extratextual aspects of the scripture. She also contests traditional canonized readings of the Qur'an by inciting all different types of modern discourse, while still exploring the limits and boundaries of her own theoretical understanding. Definitely a must for anyone interested in the "supposed" role of women in Islam.

[Damian Dempsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty damn good book. Very detailed account of how oppressive readings of the Qur'an became confused with the Qur'anic discourse itself. Posits alternative intepretive approach that delineates a very convincing anti patriarchal theme within the text. Nevertheless, it does not give a satisfactory account of how the institution of a highly patriarchal family structure sits with this anti patriarchal theme. Furthermore, to argue that orthodox readings of the Qur'an are unholistic and ignore liberatory themes and are thus arbritary is a bit disengenous considering there are clear power relations instituted between men and women within the Qur'an. Because of this it verges slightly into the apologist territory for me. Despite this shortcoming the themes identified such as displacing the soverignty of the father with God's was absolutly fascinating.

[Hadia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this book. Its tone is highly academic, but I thought it did a wonderful job of demonstrating how the Quran is consistent with egalitarian values of gender equity and how misogynist interpretations of the text reflect people's own pre-text and understanding of the text, rather than the Quran itself. She criticizes readings of the Quran that are decontextualized and selective, thereby emphasizing that it should be read holistically and intratextually. She argues that the Quran itself lays out a method for exegesis based on textual holism.

[G Barahona · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barlas' book is part of the modern scholarship in Islamic studies. She puts forth a strong argument (with excellent citations) that Islam has been derailed by shutting down ijti'had and ijma as well as the elevation of the ahadith over the Qur'an itself - which God specifically warned against. The book is broken into 3 parts and the first two delve deeply into these issues. The third part focused on the impact of these failures onto women. Excellent book for its argument and her craft.

[🌸Sweetgrass · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm finished with "Believing Women"...: An incredible scholarly & critical analysis that offers an insightful & inclusive approach textually, historically, culturally; lifting the veil off of patriarchal paradigms (once and for all) and revealing the true beauty, the essence of the Qur'an. Highly Recommended.

[Jaine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely, a fantastic book. An important book.

I can't emphasize enough how remarkable "Believing Women" is-- not remarkable only in so far as it applies to Islam...but also in the realm of women's studies, women's rights, feminism, families and marriages, justice, "peace studies", theology, hermeneutics.

Tremendous.

[Exavidreader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting and valid points based on the Quran showing how Islam strives for gender equality. Difference does not mean inequality. On the other hand, there are many other contentious issues that were not addressed such as the law of inheritance. There are also some issues that I disagree with. Although not comprehensive enough, it is still a good read.

[Alia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing read. Really academic but so insightful for Muslims and Non Muslims alike. She does a great job of "re-reading" the Sacred text, without coming off as trying to modify it. Would highly recommend anyone interested in feminist(s) critique theories or Woman in Islam.