Sexual Ethics in Islam (24 page)

More nuanced explorations of the “degree verse” by other commentators acknowledge the existence of the degree but limit its scope to the immediate Qur’anic context of divorce.
46
In granting men the additional authority to pronounce or take back divorces, “the Qur’an recognizes men as the locus of power and authority in actually existing patriarchies,”
4
7
but does not other- wise stipulate a husband’s superiority in marriage. (Divorce is, in fact, a realm in which Qur’anic verses clearly accept or confer greater power for husbands in relation to their wives. Female responsibility to act also appears in this verse, which expresses a command regarding their action – “Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three [menstrual]
48
cycles” – but does so in a way that makes clear women’s legal passivity, referring to them as women who have been divorced.) The Qur’an’s declar- ation in this verse that “their husbands have more right to take them back in that period if they (masc./inclusive plural) wish for

“if you have touched women” 125

reconciliation”
49
has been plausibly construed to refer to the “degree” mentioned in the verse.

The specifics of the Qur’an’s regulations cannot be understood in isolation from their historical context, but how precisely that context is to serve later readers is open to debate. Engineer places himself in an ultimately untenable position: he insists, on the one hand, that the Qur’an affirms the equality of men and women, yet acknowledges, on the other, that there are “situational constraints”
50
governing the Qur’an, meaning that particular verses may not always demonstrate this equality. According to Engineer, “Scriptures both reflect the given situation and also transcend it.”
51
There are both “normative” and “contextual” verses in the Qur’an.
52
Ijtihad
– defined by Engineer as “exerting oneself to solve newly arising problems if no precise guidance was available in the Qur’an and in the Prophet’s Sunnah”
53
– is to play a major role in transforming modern understandings of verses that seem unfair to women today. Ironically, Engineer blames earlier scholars for deviat- ing from the “normative” message of the Qur’an by putting their individual interpretation on its verses, while asserting that contemporary scholars should exercise the same type of
ijtihad
.

Esack, in an article that focuses on Surah 4, verse 34, agrees with Engineer and other scholars that interpretation of the Qur’anic text has always played a significant role in determining how its verses have been understood and imple- mented. He notes key verses where the Qur’an advocates gender justice, including a more accurately translated but similarly truncated version of the degree verse.
54
Where he moves against the grain of Muslim feminist and reformist discourse on the Qur’an is in his assertion that it is impossible to place all blame for the difference and inequality in interpretations of the Qur’an on its interpreters. Considering himself “a Muslim with a pas- sionate commitment to both the Qur’an and to gender justice,” he recognizes that these can be “seemingly conflictual voices.”
55
Esack makes the crucial point that interpreters of the Qur’an must grapple with its androcentrism in addressing certain revelations to men; indeed “The Qur’an’s essential audience is

126 sexual ethics and islam

males. ... [Women] are essentially subjects being dealt with – however kindly – rather than being directly addressed.”
56

Esack discusses Surah 4, verse 34 as a prime example of a verse presupposing male listeners; it also assumes male phys- ical control of women. The provisions outlining measures to be taken in case of women’s
nushuz
– or, more exactly, in case of men’s fear of female
nushuz
– are addressed to a male audience, in sharp contrast to the way that women’s different options in the face of a husband’s
nushuz
are discussed in Surah 4, verse 128, where both men and women are discussed in the third person. Esack demonstrates that while classical commentaries oversimplify the matter of women’s devotion to God and obedi- ence to husbands, modern apologetics and feminist analyses frequently overlook the very clear authority delegated to men over women’s bodies.

Garments for one another

In Surah 2, verse 228, positing that men have a degree over women (or that husbands have a degree over their wives), men and women are spoken of in reciprocal but unequal terms – but they are both spoken
of
. In both Surah 4, verse 34, the “striking” verse, and Surah 2, verse 187, the “garment” verse, women are spoken
of
, but men are spoken
to
.
57
This commonality between these two verses is all the more noteworthy given that the clause so frequently quoted from the latter refers to a reciprocal and mutual relationship between spouses, while the former pre- sumes (or commands) hierarchical and gender differentiated spousal interactions. I will consider the garment verse in its entirety below, but here I want to suggest that the Qur’anic mode of address is not in itself sufficient to classify the contents of particular verses. The Qur’anic text repeatedly refers to women as a “them” who must be dealt with by men, who are its implicit or explicit addressees, with regard to matters associated with sex, women’s bodies, and conduct in intimate relation- ships. Yet not all of these verses addressed to men about women endorse customs and rules supporting male dominance.

“if you have touched women” 127

Verses addressed (in the second person) to men dis- cussing women (in the third person) may or may not assume or advocate women’s legal or social passivity, though the very mode of address presumes a privileged position for men as the audi- ence for divine guidance. The extensive discussions of divorce and widowhood surrounding the “degree” verse in Surah 2 take the male as the hearer (“you”) and the female as the subject or object of the revelation (“they”), but do so in order to promote women’s liberty. Examples include Surah 2, verse 232 (“When you have divorced women and they [fem. plural] have reached their term”), verse 234 (“When any of you die leaving wives, they [fem. plural] are to wait on their own account”), and verse 240 (“And those of you who die leaving wives”). Though these verses are addressed to a male audience, it is not the males who are being tasked with obligations and granted agency. The women of whom God speaks are passive in the sense of
being
divorced or widowed (though one may presume a man leaving a widow did not do so intentionally), yet the crucial information conveyed in these verses is female freedom to act independently in the aftermath of a marriage’s termination. Even though men, not women, are the recipients of the commands, these regula- tions promote women’s right or duty to act – especially since, in the case of widowhood, husbands are only the addressees in a theoretical sense.

Similar injunctions in other verses, such as those stress- ing that the choice to remain married or to separate should be mutual, promote the relaxation of male marital and familial controls on women. The use of the dual form in relevant con- texts makes clear that both spouses are intended, as in Surah 4, verse 130 (“if they [dual] separate”). A series of statements in Surah 2, verses 229–30 addresses both male and female feel- ings.
58
Even Surah 2, verse 230, which depicts the male action of divorce as unilateral, does not dismiss female agency entirely, presenting the woman as the active party in another marriage. (This stands in contrast to Surah 2, verse 221 where men marry and women, in the passive voice, are married.) Further, any pos- sible reunion between two spouses after divorce appears as a mutual action, based on a mutual ability to observe God’s limits.

128 sexual ethics and islam

Amina Wadud and Asma Barlas have argued that the places where the Qur’an addresses men
qua
men respond to the practical exigencies of an extant patriarchy – specifically, that of seventh-century Arabia.
59
This explanation accounts satisfactor- ily for discussions such as those about divorce or widowhood, and consent to marriage; commands that men fulfill obligations toward women but allow them independent action suggest a trajectory away from male familial domination and control, if not a complete rejection of patriarchy. With regard to sexual intimacy, though, this interpretation is less convincing. In a number of verses concerned with sex, women are spoken about and men are spoken to in a way that presumes male control and is unconnected with ameliorative measures intended to restrict men’s scope of action or enlarge that assigned to women.

A number of considerations arise when the “garment” verse is considered in its entirety:

Lawful for you on the nights of the fasts is the approach to your wives. They (fem. pl.) are garments for you and you are garments for them. God knows that you used to cheat yourselves, and [God] turned to you and forgave you. So now be intimate with them (
bashiruhunna
, fem. pl.) and pursue what God has written for you. And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct from the black thread, from the dawn, then fast completely until night. And do not be intimate with them (fem. pl.) when you are in retreat in the mosque. Those are the limits ordained by God, so do not approach them. Thus does God make signs clear to humanity, that they may be conscientious.
60

This verse speaks to men about pursuing or abstaining from intimacy with women. Despite the address to men, there does not seem to be anything inherently gender specific in the commands. The regulations with regard to fasting are univer- sally taken to apply equally to male and female Muslims.
61
Perhaps, then, not only the regulations surrounding eating and drinking but also those pertaining to sex should be read as

“if you have touched women” 129

non-gender differentiated; clearly, the description of spouses as “garments” for one another is equally applicable to both sexes.
62
Moreover, there is no indication that the human consciousness of divine guidance that is counseled at the end of the verse should be limited to men. Nonetheless, the verse clearly pre- sumes male initiation of sexual activity (“Lawful for you ... is the approach”) and male restraint from initiating sex when impermissible (“do not be intimate with them then”).

Another passage presumes a level of male control over the intimate relationship between a couple that even more clearly assigns a dominant role to men in the sexual decision- making process, with regard to both initiation of sex and sexual positions. Surah 2, verses 222–23 declares:

They ask you about menstruation. Say, It is a hurt (
adhan
), so keep away from women during menstruation and do not approach them until they become pure. When they have purified themselves come to them in the way (
min haythu
) God has ordered you. God loves those who repent, and loves those (masc./inclusive pl.) who purify themselves. Your wives are a tilth (
harth
) for you; so come to your tilth as you wish, but do something for your souls beforehand. And be conscious of God, and know that you are going to meet God. And give good tidings to the believers.
63

In addition to the obvious (these commands are addressed to men, about women) and the tangential (menstru- ation renders women impure for intercourse), these verses make two essential points. First, they presuppose male agency and female passivity with regard to the initiation of sex. Second, they place all sexual relations, like other human activity, firmly within the scope of divine regulation.

Exegetes understand Surah 2, verse 222 to be divine guidance conveyed to the Prophet in response to questions posed to him by Muslims (“They ask you about ...”). It is per- fectly intelligible that commands or advice about women should be directed toward men, if they were the ones doing the questioning. The content of the first verse, about sex during

130 sexual ethics and islam

menstruation, clearly indicates that men bear responsibility for either keeping away from or approaching their wives for sex. It does not, for example, command men to wait for their wives to approach them after they have purified themselves from men- struation. Though women have the duty to purify themselves, it remains a male duty (or prerogative) to initiate sex once purifi- cation is complete.

The second of these verses famously declares “
nisa’ukum harthun lakum
” – “your wives are a tilth for you.” The choice of metaphor seems to suggest passivity; a field, after all, is an object to be tilled, not an active partner in the decision whether or not to plow, or plant, or harvest (or to
be
plowed, etc.).
64
Barlas has argued, suggestively, that one cannot read this verse to justify the treatment of “women as men’s sexual prop- erty”, because “property in land” was not known in that place and time; besides, other Qur’anic verses give a different seman- tic scope for the term
harth
.
65
Others accept the land analogy, but stress that the likening of a woman’s body, or genitals, to a tilth implies an obligation of careful cultivation, not proprietary license to act without thought for the woman’s well-being.
66
Others have suggested that the passage refers to procreation and the (im)permissibility of contraception.
68
However this passage is interpreted, though, the fact remains that the Qur’an here objectifies women in the most literal sense, discussing them as matter to be acted-upon not agents in their own right.

The usual account of the revelation of Surah 2, verse 223, strengthens the view that the Qur’anic text supposes male control of women’s bodies; it is said to have been revealed in response to a dispute between husband and wife over the acceptability of a particular position for intercourse. The wife reportedly objected to the husband’s desire to enter her from behind; this verse granted him permission to have sex with her in the position of his choosing.
68
If such is its circumstance of revelation, the verse seems to preclude a woman having any right to deny her husband sexual access (except during menstrual impurity) in the manner of his choosing. Of course, the occa- sion of revelation usually proposed for this verse may instead be a post-facto rationalization; the Qur’anic text might merely