Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Saira Khan 1

“Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an: Asma

Barlas

In “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the

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

Qur’an is a patriarchal text,” and she endeavors to challenge the oppressive

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

and the Qur’an, and focuses on specific Scripture.

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

translation demonstrate the variations in the possible interpretations of the text.

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

upon. Barlas establishes two definitions of patriarchy: 1) the tradition of father-rule, 2)

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

antipatriarchal” (Barlas, 5).

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

investigates the interpretive methods of conservative and critical Muslims.

Chapter Three, ‘Intertextualities, Extratextual Contexts’ discusses the

relationships among texts (intertextuality) and the contexts of reading (extratextuality).

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

generation’s practice, which is an interpretation of the second generation’s practice,

which is an interpretation of the companions’ practice, which is an interpretation of the

[Prophet’s] practice, which is an interpretation of the revelation contained in the Qu'ran.”

(Barlas, 77).

At the beginning of Part Two, Chapter Four, ‘The Patriarchal Imaginary of

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

mentions Qur’anic verses regarding Abraham , discussing how “Abraham begins by

rejecting his father’s gods, and then his father’s authority, calling on his father to follow

him instead, challenging the very core of father-right as it is structured in patriarchies”

(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.

Chapter Five ‘The Qur’an, Sex/Gender, and Sexuality: Sameness, difference,

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

men’s sexual control over women.

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

and constitute a pair is integral to Qur'anic epistemology" (Barlas, 134). Barlas

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).

In Chapter Six ‘The Family and Marriage: Retrieving the Qur’an’s


Saira Khan 5

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

clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding men’s responsibility to protect

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

be liberating for both women and men” (Barlas, 202).

Barlas establishes a means for Muslim women to escape patriarchal

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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și