Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Barlas
Qur’an, Asma Barlas’ conducts an analysis of the position of women in Muslim society.
She directs her work towards a broad audience including Muslims, non-Muslims, women,
men, westerners and non-westerners. The basic question she raises is “whether or not the
interpretations of the Qur’an while at the same time giving Muslim women a means by
which to establish their equality in a patriarchal setting with the Qur’an serving as a
support (Barlas, xi). Barlas believes that the Qur’an confirms the equality of men and
women, and in order to prove her point she discusses the historical foundations of Islam
When discussing verses from the Qur’an, Barlas relies on four different versions
of Qur’anic translations for her interpretations. Her primary source of interpretation is the
work of Yusuf Ali, as well as Muhammad Asad, A.J. Arberry, and M.M. Pickthall. The
variety of sources proves to be useful, especially in the second part of the book where
Barlas uses verses from the Qur’an more extensively. The delicate differences in
Part One of the book analyzes the primary texts, which includes the Qur'an, Tafsir
and Ahadith, and also the main secondary sources including the Sunnah, Shari'ah and the
state, utilized by Muslims. Barlas examines the historical basis of these sources and
analyzes the process which led to the alteration of the texts to conform to the
contemporary cultures. In the introductory chapter, ‘The Qur’an and Muslim Women:
Saira Khan 2
Reading Patriarchy, Reading Liberation,’ the essential questions of whether the Qur’an is
a patriarchal text and whether it permits or encourages liberation for women are built
the politics of gender inequality based on sexual differentiation (Barlas, 2). She also
makes two different claims. The first claim is that “insofar as all texts are polysemic, they
are open to variant readings.” The second claim is that “the Qur’an is egalitarian and
Chapter Two ‘Texts and Textualities’ distinguishes the primary sources of Islamic
literature (the Qur’an), and methods (tafsir- exegesis) and the use of ahadith (narratives
about the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad) for understanding the Qur’an.
Barlas maintains that there should be an unmistakable distinction between the Qur’an as
the self-revelation of God to the Prophet Muhammad, and the tafsir, ahadith, and shari’a,
as tradition. Barlas argues the ahadith was established by a select group of interpreters
and helped institute some of the oppressive traditions practiced today. Barlas also
Barlas defines the prophet’s sunnah, ahadith, ulama (the collaboration between the
religious scholars), ijtihad (critical reasoning) and ijma’ (collective consensus). The
discussion of these sources demonstrates the relationship between social and political
circumstances. It also allows us to explore the idea that these interpretations may not be
consistent with tradition. Barlas quotes Wheeler in order to explain the possibility of the
distortion of these texts “Of the second century authorities are interpretations of the third
Saira Khan 3
(Barlas, 77).
Father/s: Divine Ontology and the Prophets’ Barlas makes more use of actual verses and
readings from the Qur’an itself. With the greater use of the Qur’anic texts, Barlas returns
to her main argument that the Qur’an is not patriarchal and that “the teachings of the
Qur’an are radically egalitarian and even anti-patriarchal” (Barlas, 93). Part Two
explores more specific issues pertaining to women and their various interpretations.
Barlas then supplies her own interpretations of the text with examples to support her two
main questions. Beginning with the issue of patriarchy she declares that the Qur'an does
not raise males over females, or bestow fathers with ‘right/rule’. She makes use of the
concept of tawhid (the unity of God) which rejects associating anything with God,
especially the association of God with male figures such as father or son. The Arabic
word for God is gender neutral, “Allah,” literally means “The God”.
Barlas takes into account the prophets’ role in the Qur’an. For example, she
rejecting his father’s gods, and then his father’s authority, calling on his father to follow
(Barlas, 111). To emphasize her point that God did not allow fathers/males right/rule and
to rebuff patriarchy Barlas uses the example of Abrahams obedience to God’s will and
Saira Khan 4
the near sacrifice of his son who himself accepts God’s will and assents to his own
sacrifice.
equality’ discusses sex and gender in the Qur’an. Barlas believes “both women and men
have the same capacity for moral agency, choice, and individuality,” and argues that the
Qur’an “does not sexualize moral agency” and that it “appoints women and men each
other’s guides and protectors” (Barlas, 140). One of the many controversial topics she
discusses include harth, translated to mean tilth or property, used as a justification for
Barlas argues that the Qur'an does not define men and women as two "binary
oppositions," men as the Subject and women as the Other (Barlas, 132), but as "two
complete differences" (Barlas, 129). She demonstrates this by exploring the story of
Creation in the Qur'an. "The theme that women and men commenced from a single Self
comments on the fact that the Qur’an makes no distinction between men and women
pertaining to the gaze. ‘Thus, many commentators of old, who took this Ayah to mean
that the gaze was the messenger of fornication, sought to mitigate it not as the Qur'an
does by counseling modesty for both men and women, but by segregating and veiling
women in order to protect men's sexual virtue.... The Qur'an however, rules out both
male and female scopic activity. Moreover, its injunction to cast down one's eyes
establishes that people must, in fact, be free to look upon one another publicly"
(Barlas,158).
Egalitarianism,’ Barlas explores the connection between “mothers and fathers and wives
and husbands.” Using extensive quotes from the Qur’an, Barlas discusses and attempts to
women, the presumed right to ‘wife-beating,’ divorce, and polygyny. Barlas stresses that,
“We may also find that [the Qur’an] comes closest to articulating sexual relationships in
the kind of ‘non-oppositional and non-hierarchical’ mode that many scholars believe can
interpretations of the Qur’an. She also recognizes that it is difficult to change the
predominant ways of thinking that have been established since the Abbasids. In the
Postscript she discusses how "We cannot reinterpret Islam without rereading the Qur'an,
and many Muslims do in fact recognize the urgency of such an exercise given its abuses
at the hands of many Muslim clerics and states to oppress women" (Barlas, 210). Barlas’s
work may not dramatically change the function of women in Islamic society however it
does establish a new way of thinking about Islam and the interpretation of Islamic texts.