The noble traditions have elaborated on the idea of this promised punishment. In one narration, Imam Sadiq (a) is reported to have explained this verse – “The punishment is the appearance of Al-Qa’im (a). The certain Umma is his companions who are the same in number as the warriors of [the Battle of] Badr.”[175] The punishment is a psychological one which comes with the establishment of the faith throughout the earth. It also has a physical aspect which comes through some of the signs of the reappearance, like the great sinkhole.
There is a question that is often posed about the time of the reappearance. People say, ‘We read a lot about that time, but we do not see any mention of the role of women. Do women not play a role in these events?’
This question can also be taken a step further. We can ask, ‘What has the role of women been throughout Muslim history and heritage? Why does Islam give priority to men over women in some religious rulings, so that a woman gets half of a man’s share in inheritance for example? Is Islam a patriarchal religion?’
To answer these questions, let us clarify two points.
The Correct Reading of Texts
If we read the texts of our faith – the Holy Quran and the noble traditions – we find that there is a distinction between how they address men and women. For example, the Holy Quran says, “And men have a degree above them [i.e. women].”[176] The Holy Quran also says, “And if there are not two men, then a man and two women – from those whom you approve as witnesses – so that if one of the two defaults the other will remind her.”[177]
In another verse, it says, “For the male shall be the like of the share of two females.”[178] But what is the correct reading of such passages?
Modernist Readings
Some Islamists have adopted a modernist reading of the text, relying in their views on differences between faith, heritage, and history.
First, they point out the distinction between the faith and scholarly heritage. Faith is the religion as revealed to and practiced by the Prophet Muhammad (s). On the other hand, jurisprudence and the scholarly heritage that we have inherited over generations are based on scholars’ understanding of the text. They are, therefore, the products of fallible men and may not be an accurate reflection of the faith. An individual’s disagreement with parts of this heritage does not constitute a rejection of the faith because the two are not one and the same.
The best proof of this concept lies in the fact that scholars disagree amongst themselves on the interpretation of evidence and have sometimes taken stances that fly in the face of a thousand years of settled jurisprudence. The late Imam Khomeini, for example, ruled that playing chess is permissible so long as it is not considered a tool for gambling – an opinion that contradicts the settled jurisprudential tradition amongst Twelver Shia. The martyred Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr also ruled that borrowing money with a rate of interest equal to the rate of inflation is permissible, another ruling that contradicts settle religious heritage.
Scholars disagree amongst themselves and are willing to proffer opinions that contradict centuries of religious heritage. That is enough proof to show that the religious heritage and the faith itself are not one and the same. So a person that disagrees with this heritage does not reject the faith. A person may differ with a religious opinion, the product of the fallible human mind, and that does not constitute a transgression against the commands of God.
Second, they posit that the Holy Quran that we have amongst us is not the actual revelation sent to the Prophet Muhammad (s). Rather, they argue, revelation was a set of abstract concepts and manifestations that were bestowed onto the Holy Prophet (s), and he was the one to translate these abstract ideas into the Arabic language. The revelation itself was divine and infinite, but when the Holy Prophet (s) translated it into words it became a human product. Such a text cannot be separated from its historical context and must be understood within it.
For example, the Treaty of Hudaybuyyah is a man-made product – a document agreed upon by the Holy Prophet (s) and the disbelievers of Mecca. We cannot understand the document without understanding the circumstances that led up to its creation. Because it is a human phenomenon, it has to be understood within its historical context. The same goes for the Muslim defeat at the Battle of Uhud, or any other historical event.
All human speech is an entirely human phenomenon. Every human phenomenon must be read within its context. Thus, Quranic verses must also be read within their context. So when we read the verse that says “then a man and two women – from those whom you approve as witnesses,”[179] we must interpret it in accordance to the historical context. At that time, women were relegated to being housewives and thus did not possess the requisite refinement and culture. However, today the matter is completely different and women now serve as professors, parliamentarians, ministers, and heads of state. We can say that this specific verse is addressing mankind in that stage of its development and does not apply absolutely to all eras.
And take, for example, the blessed verse, “God has allowed trade and forbidden usury.”[180] This was a rule given at a time when inflation did not pose a problem to the world’s economic system. However, given the impact that inflation plays in the world today, the followers of the modernist approach suggest that usury is no longer forbidden. In summary, the modernist approach suggests that Quranic verses should be understood in their historical context and should not be understood as absolute rules and living teachings that apply to all eras.
Discussion of the Modernist Approach
First, if the revelation had been given to the Holy Prophet (s) as a set of abstractions and then he was the one to formulate the verses, the modernist approach may in fact be appropriate. However, that is not the case.
Revelation was given to the Prophet Muhammad (s) both as abstract ideas and as specific verses in the Arabic language. In other words, it was not the Holy Prophet (s) who formulated the verses, as they were revealed in the form that we read today. The Holy Quran itself professes this in the verse,
This is indeed [a Book] sent down by the Lord of all the worlds, brought down by the Trustworthy Spirit upon your heart (so that you may be one of the warners), in a clear Arabic language.[181]
The Holy Quran also says,
Do not move your tongue with it to hasten it. Indeed it is up to Us to put it together and to recite it. And when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Then, its exposition [also] lies with Us.[182]
In another verse, God addresses the Holy Prophet (s) and says “Do not hasten with the Quran before its revelation is completed for you.”[183] These verses are a clear indication that the Holy Quran was revealed not just in abstractions, but as structured verses in the Arabic language.
The Quran is a divine product and not a human product, and so this aspect of the modernist argument does not hold.
Second, if we concede that the Holy Quran was revealed as a set of abstractions and that the Holy Prophet (s) was the one who translated it into Arabic and formulated its verses, we must then ask, ‘How do we go about finding out what the true religion is? How can we understand it? Is it limited to the elite who can understand it? Who are those elite? Is it the intellectuals? Or linguists? Or jurists? How can we understand the true teachings of the religion by studying the words of the Holy Prophet (s)?’
If we ask any rational individual about how to best understand any text, the answer would be that we need to go to the relevant speech community and understand its customs for the usage of language. For example, if we have questions about a work of English literature, we should ask speakers of the English language about the plain meaning of the text. The same goes for any language. So if we are seeking to understand the language of the Holy Quran, we must go back to speakers of the Arabic language and seek to understand its custom in terms of language and literature.
This is especially true since the Holy Quran was not revealed to the elite. Its address was not limited to linguists or jurists. Rather, it addressed all pe
ople in a “clear Arabic language.”[184]
So we ask, ‘How can we understand Arabic custom in terms of language and literature?’ Arabic language and its nuances cannot be understood easily and without effort. It is built on principles and rules that apply sometimes generally and sometimes only in particular instances. The general principles include, for example, the rules on qualified and unqualified phrases, general and particular phrases, and the morphology of nouns and verbs. There are also some rules that apply to particular words.
Thus, in order to understand the text of the Holy Quran, we have to go back to the experts who know these general and particular principles. Not every individual can understand its meaning alone.
In attempting to understand the Holy Quran, we go back to jurists and scholars. This is not to say that their understanding is divine and beyond critique. Rather, they are the reference point because they are the subject matter experts in this field. Much like we turn to a doctor in medical issues or to an attorney in legal issues, we should also look towards religious scholars when it comes to issues of understanding the faith.
Third, the commands of the Holy Quran can be generally separated into administrative and legal. We can understand the difference by looking at each verse within its context and understanding the circumstances of its revelation.
The administrative commands in the Holy Quran came to solve specific issues. For example, the Holy Quran says, “O you who have faith! When you converse privately with the Apostle, offer a charity before your private talk.”[185] This is not a legal standard or principle. It was meant to address a particular problem at the time. The Muslims were overstepping their bounds with the Holy Prophet (s). God wanted to limit the problem, so He revealed this verse. Verses such as this cannot be separated from their historical context and the circumstances of their revelation.
As another example take the verse, “O Prophet! Urge on the faithful to fight.”[186] This is an administrative command limited to its specific circumstances and is not a legal principle that applies to all eras.
The same distinction can be found in the noble traditions of the Holy Prophet (s) and his Household (a). For example, Imam Sadiq (a) was once asked about whether the meat of the animal sacrifices can be taken out of the Valley of Mina and offered as charity in nearby cities. The Imam (a) answered,
We used to say that it should not be taken out due to the need of the people [of Mina]. But today, the people [performing the Hajj and offering the sacrifice] are much more, so there is no harm in taking it out [of Mina].[187]
In other words, the instructions that the meat of the animal sacrifices should not be taken out of Mina was administrative and only to solve a particular problem.
Imam Ali (a) was also asked once why he did not dye his grey hair since the Holy Prophet (s) had done so and instructed others to do the same. The Imam (a) replied, “Surely, he had said that at a time when the religion was confined to a few, but now that its expanse has widened and it is firmly settled, every individual is free in his choice.”[188] In other words, the command of the Holy Prophet (s) was administrative, and so people were free to choose once the particular circumstances had changed.
As such, administrative commands are limited in their scope to the circumstances and do not apply more generally.
The other types of commands in the Holy Quran can be described as legal. These commands cannot be restricted to their historical circumstances, but applied more generally. We cannot say that a command is no longer applicable because it was revealed when women were housewives and now they are heads of state. Similarly, we cannot say that the command prohibiting usury is no longer applicable because it was revealed when inflation was not a significant issue and times have changed since then.
Legal commands are absolute, and therefore apply to all times and eras. Restricting any such command to one era and not another would need some evidence to rebut the presumption of general relevance and applicability. And because we believe that they are absolute, we cannot presume that they apply only to a specific time period and require evidence to support their relevance and applicability more generally.
For example, assume that an endowment was set aside a thousand years ago to support the poor and destitute. Can anyone claim that the endowment was set for that time period and to support the poor of that time only? The endowment was set at that time, but so long as the principle exists and there are poor in this world that could be supported, the endowment will continue on in perpetuity.
An endowment will be respected in a reasonable society and will not be restricted to one specific generation simply because circumstances change over time. The endowment should be respected because of the generally relevant and applicable nature of the endower’s language. Unless there is evidence to limit the applicability of such language, it should be allowed to take its plain meaning which applies absolutely.
The same applies for the Arabic language. So long as a command comes in absolute terms, there needs to be evidence to show that it is fact limited in some way.
The same is true for the Quranic passages in regards to women or any other issue. So long as they are absolute in their language and no evidence exists to limit their scope, they should be understood to apply generally to all times and eras.
That is why it is reported that Imam Baqir (a) said,
If a verse comes down addressing a people, and then if those people were to perish the verse perishes with them, then there would not remain anything of the Quran. Rather, the Quran applies from its beginning to its end so long as the heavens and the earth remain intact.[189]
Another tradition reads,
What [Prophet] Muhammad permitted shall be permissible forever until the Day of Judgment. What he forbade shall be forbidden forever until the Day of Judgment. It will never be otherwise or replaced by another.[190]
It is amusing to see some of these modernists apply their ideas selectively. If they like a verse, they give it general applicability. If they do not like it, they restrict it to a certain time and place.
For example, they say that these verses are absolute: “Indeed God enjoins justice and kindness, and generosity towards relatives”[191]; “You will never attain piety until you spend out of what you hold dear”[192]; “The faithful are indeed brothers”[193]; “A believer may not kill another believer, unless it is by mistake.”[194]
On the other hand, they claim that these verses are limited: “For the male shall be the like of the share of two females”[195]; and “God has allowed trade and forbidden usury.”[196]
So we maintain that the correct reading must be one that adheres to the absolute nature of the verses’ applicability, unless some evidence is provided to the contrary. Each command in the Holy Quran is considered legal and applicable to all eras and generations unless there is specific evidence that shows it to be administrative and limited to the specific time period. This can be understood from some of the Holy Quran’s verses – for example, “We have sent down the Book to you as a clarification of all things and as guidance, mercy and good news for the Muslims.”[197] As for the referenced disagreement of the scholars in some issues, it is not based on the theories preferred by the modernists but is due to their differing understandings of the text.
Jurisprudential Readings
The jurisprudential reading, adopted by the Islamic Seminary, is built on two premises:
First, there is no general rule that favors men over women. Rather, the general rule is that religious teachings and divine commands apply equally to both genders. That can be understood from the general content of the verses and the specific verses that state this general rule – for example, “The wives have rights similar to the obligations upon them, in accordance with honorable norms.”[198]
This general rule is applicable unless supplanted by more specific evidence in a particular instance. The rules that distinguish between men and women (for example, in matters of being witnesses or in the inheritance) are simpl
y exceptions, and are not the general rule. Again, the general rule is equality between the genders because of the absolute nature of the verses and because of verses that state the rule outright – that women “have rights similar to the obligations upon them, in accordance with honorable norms.”[199]
It has been mentioned in the books of principles of jurisprudence that are taught in the Islamic seminaries that the objectives of legislation may either be real or constructive. For example, the prohibition of alcohol has a real objective; that is, the elimination of intoxication and addiction in a society. On the other hand, the punishment for slander of a believer is based on a constructive objective; that is the societal good of protecting the believers’ honor and reputation.
Or, for example, a woman must wait for three menstrual periods before she can remarry after a divorce. On the other hand, a widow must wait for four months and ten days. Why? It may be for the constructive objective of safeguarding the sanctity of marriage. If the husband dies, then out of respect for the existing marriage, the waiting period is extended. The protection of the sanctity of marriage is not a real and direct objective, but a constructive social objective.
So in summary, not all religious laws are the result of real and direct objectives since some may be the result of constructive social objectives.
Second, preference in religious rulings does not indicate actual superiority. For example, the martyr who dies on the field of battle is given a high status and is not washed or shrouded before burial, where as a believer dying in his home does not get the same preference. This preference, however, does not mean that the martyr is actually superior.
For example, Hamza the Master of Martyrs and the uncle of the Holy Prophet (s) died in battle and was not washed or shrouded before burial. However, Prophet Muhammad (s) himself died in his home and was washed and shrouded before burial. Does this mean that Hamza was better than Prophet Muhammad (s)? The religious rule did give preference to Hamza in one respect, but it does not signify and actual preference or superiority.
The Mahdi Page 8