A Comment on Husband/Wife Relationship…

I don't understand how the word 'maintain' came to mean 'has authority over'. A man's responsibilty to mantain and protect does not imply he has been given authority but he has been given a responsibility. One does not imply the other. To assume that because Allah gave the husband the *responsibility* to protect and mantain his wife means he has *authority* over her is presuming to know God's intent. No one knows God's mind nor His reasons for doing (or not doing) certain things. God often gives us responsibility without giving us authority.

Women have been given the responsibilty to carry and give life. This responsibilty is reflected in her physical being. A wife has no more authority over the life she carries and produces than her husband. They are both the child's parents A husband is made differently and of course has different responsibities. Not only because of his physical make up but also because a woman's responsibilty makes her more vunerable, men are given the responsibility to protect and mantain women. This responsibilty does not give the husband authority over a wife any more than giving birth gives a wife authority over her husband. God has given us all a responsibilty to help the the needy in the community. This does not imply that we have authority over the needy in any way but tells us that we must use what has been given us to help mantain those in need. Responsibility does not equal authority.

A woman is protected and mantained her entire life. A father protects and mantains his adult daughter, a son protects and mantains his elderly mother. There is no authority or rights to control or punish in either of these cases.  A son does not have any rights to authority over his mother even if he is supporting her in her old age.

Was not the Prophet Mohammed 'mantained' by his wife Khadijah? She had no authority over her husband because of this mantainence.

The following examples were used in your discussion to show that to be given responsiblity implies being given authority:

the parents (both male and female) are responsible for the well being of their children (both male and female) and therefore should be given a degree of authority over them;

Parents do have authority over their children but the children are not mature adults and therefore are not able to make responsible decisions on their own. A wife is by definition a mature adult. The two situations can not be compared. I realize you do not mean to say that wife to a husband is like a child to his parents.

the teachers (both male and female) are responsible for the well being of their pupil (both male and female) and therefore should be given a degree of authority over them

A teacher does have authority over his students but a student is there asking for guidence from the more knowlegable teacher. The adult student gives the teacher *temporary* authority over him when recieving this knowlege and guidance. A women is not less knowlegable than a man nor is her marriage a request for guidance. Again the example of responsiblity = authority can not be concluded.

the head of the state (whether male or female) is responsible for the well being of the citizens (both male and female) and therefore should be given a degree of authority over them.

The state is responsible for its citizens but each citizen also is responsible for mantaining and protecting the state. If the head of state has authority over the citizens because of the responsiblity to them then using the same argument, each citizen also has authority over the head of state.

I agree with you that Islam does not assign a lower status to women but I do not see where authority being given to a husband over his wife. If a husband were given authority over his wife because of his responsibility to protect and mantain her than a father would have the authority over his grown daughter and a son over his elderly mother. If this were so Islam would always differentiate between the status of a man and a woman at every stage of a woman's life- which is not the case.

We can conclude that repsonsibility does not always imply authority. When responsibilty does give authority, it is on a limited temporary basis. Parents have authority over their child only until the child matures. A teacher only has authority over the adult student until the student gains the knowledge sought. I know of no case where a mature adult is given permanent authority over another mature adult. (and marriage is permenent)

Men and women are given different mental, emotional, physical qualities but to say that a man's qualities in general make him more suitable to lead the household and therefore all men are given this responsibililty by God is a bit of a leap. If a husband has the qualities to lead a household and the wife not, then the leading of the household will fall naturally upon the husband. There are cases where the qualities possessed by the wife would make her the 'natural' leader of the household and in those cases, for the sake of the household, the wife should lead. To say that God has appointed man the leader of the home is not taking into account the thousands of variations that Allah has created among the individual men and women of the world. Men, in general, may have the qualities that would, in general, make them the natural leaders in the home but not every home follows the general rule and therefore to say that God has ordained all husbands to be the leader in all homes because of the general qualities bestowed upon men does not quite follow.

I agree that family is the very basis of society and should therefore set the standards for society. If  men and woman are a degree apart in the home society can only reflect this. Children growing up learn their male/female roles in society based on what they see at home. If a husband has authority over his wife at home then it implies that a man has authority over a woman in society. Children learn what they live.

In order for a home to reflect an 'equal' society which Islam promotes, both husband and wife must have authority over each other. Both are mature adults who entered willingly into a partership and must work together to make the partnership thrive. To give one authority over the other is destroying the partnership and making it a subservient relationship. No matter how benevolent, gentle and loving the husband may be, the wife, by definition of being under the husband's authority (no matter the degree), is subservient.

To say that a husband has authority over his wife is a very broad statement. I have been told that a woman must obey her husband in every matter that does not violate the Quran. This would mean that a husband can restrict a woman's contact with the community, he has direct control over her actions and her person - which is not the case.

Could you please state what you believe to be the limitations of a husband's authority (besides ordering to do something interfere with her responsiblities to God). Does he have control of her movements in the community, her dress, her choice of friends? I Have read some material that says this is so by using the same arguments you have used and was wondering your opinion on the matter.

I'm sorry this is such a long reply but I feel very strongly on this issue. I understand it might be too long to post on your site but when you have time, (I realize you are quite busy) I would appreciate a response.

I have read your other replies to questions on your site and I have seen no deviation from the words as written in the Quran. (You are only the second Muslim man I have spoken with who views polygamy in terms of social obligation and not for self satisfaction - most leave "for the sake of orphans" out of the discussion) I admire what you have put up on your website and appreciate your hard work. I always look forward to reading your posts.

Thank you for letting me speak my mind.

Peace to you and those around you.
 

Reply

I shall try to present my opinion, briefly with reference to your comments on my response. Please do bear in mind while reading my comments that there obviously can be a difference of opinion in the interpretation of a literature.

Before going into any details with reference to your comments, I would very briefly like to clarify that when I wrote about the responsibility-authority relationship, it basically concerned administrative (or the like) and moral responsibilities.

Keeping this clarification in perspective, let us now examine your comments:

You state:

I don't understand how the word 'maintain' came to mean 'has authority over'. A man's responsibilty to mantain and protect does not imply he has been given authority but he has been given a responsibility. One does not imply the other. To assume that because Allah gave the husband the *responsibility* to protect and mantain his wife means he has *authority* over her is presuming to know God's intent.

I fully agree with you that a man’s responsibility to maintain and protect (his wife) does not imply that he has been given authority (over her). But the problem really is that the verse does not just say that "Men are responsible for their women" and end here. It goes to state that "therefore, righteous women are obedient [to their husbands] and guard [their] secrets" And then it goes further on to state that "As for those [of your women] from whom you fear refusal to accept the position [of the man], admonish them and [if this does not effect their behavior then] leave them alone on their beds and [if even this does not effect their behavior then] beat them". Now, my dear brother, keeping the whole verse in front of us, it is obviously no longer a matter of "implying" authority for a husband over his wife.

The verse has actually told us that because men are responsible for their women, therefore righteous women help their men in fulfilling their responsibility and, for this purpose, generally adopt an attitude of obedience towards their husbands. This is the general attitude required by the women towards their men. It does not mean that women do not have a say in matters pertaining to their personal or family life. A woman has all the freedom to discuss issues, to differ in opinion with the man and to try to convince him of her opinion. What it really means is that when a man and a woman feel that a particular dispute is going out of bounds and can easily result in the undoing of the family unit, at that time both of them should try to resolve the issue in a congenial atmosphere and thereby try to save the household from breaking apart. In such an extraordinary case the Qur’an has advised the wife that she should adopt the attitude of a righteous woman and save her household by giving in and showing an attitude of obedience. In case such attitude is not adopted by the wife, the Qur’an has given the directives under consideration to the husband.

It is only on the basis of the above explanation that I had expressed my views that these directives are basically an authority given to the husband to fulfill his responsibility.

You have stated that God often gives responsibility without giving any authority. I really do not agree with that (keeping in mind that we are basically talking about administrative (or the like) and moral responsibilities). To clarify, I would like to analyse the examples that you have given.

The first example (child bearing "responsibility" of a woman) refers not to an administrative or a moral responsibility, but relates to the physical make up of the human body.

Your second example is:

God has given us all a responsibilty to help the the needy in the community. This does not imply that we have authority over the needy in any way but tells us that we must use what has been given us to help mantain those in need. Responsibility does not equal authority.

In this particular case, the responsibility is actually to spend our physical, financial and all other resources in the bast of ways. If I have money, I am responsible for spending it in the best of ways, especially morally. If I have time, I should utilise it in the best of manners. If I have energy, I must put it to the best of services. This then is the responsibility. The authority: Freedom to use my money, my time and my energies in any way that I like. If I am incapacitated and thereby lose authority over utilising my resources, I am also relieved of the responsibility of utilising my resources in the best of manners.

You state:

A woman is protected and mantained her entire life. A father protects and mantains his adult daughter, a son protects and mantains his elderly mother. There is no authority or rights to control or punish in either of these cases.  A son does not have any rights to authority over his mother even if he is supporting her in her old age.

Because of the mere fact that one of the reasons given by the Qur’an for making "Men responsible for their women" is that "they spend of their wealth" does not mean that if anyone, whether related or unrelated, spends of his/her wealth to support his/her mother, father, sister, brother or anyone else, he would automatically become responsible for their acts and their well being and therefore should be given the status of the head of the family. The verse does not say that whoever spends of his/her wealth should be considered the head of the family. It only refers to the man-wife relationship. In other cases, where, for example, a son/daughter supports his/her elderly mother, the verse does not apply.

You state:

Was not the Prophet Mohammed 'mantained' by his wife Khadijah? She had no authority over her husband because of this mantainence.

Khadijah (ra) did not support the Prophet (pbuh) because he was her husband. She spent her money for the cause she believed in. It was "nusrat-e-deen" that is, helping Allah’s deen. Which, according to the Qur’an is helping Allah Himself. Furthermore, as described in the preceding paragraph, it is not only the "spending" that makes a person the head of the family.

As for your analysis of the teacher-pupil, parent-child and state-citizen examples, what I would like to stress is that what I wanted to convey was not that the woman holds the position of a child or a pupil or a citizen with reference to the husband, but that every organized activity needs to have a head and a distribution of rights and duties and responsibilities and authorities. As you have also recognized (in your analysis), it is much more easy to understand the teacher’s authority over the pupil and the parent’s over the child. It is not all that clear in the husband-wife relationship. The reason is that this is a relationship between two adults. I believe that this is precisely the reason why the Shari`ah had to intervene in this relationship and give directions about it. When the relationship entails two adults, it is much more likely that a dispute over the authority-responsibility structure may occur. It is basically to resolve this dispute that the shari`ah has intervened. The shari`ah does not tell us that the father (or in his absence the mother) is the head of the family, as the matter was quite clear. It tells us that in case of husband-wife relationship – where the matter may not remain all that clear – the husband should be considered the head of the family. I must reemphasize that such authority is not to take away a woman’s freedom, it is basically to build the household unit on sound and durable footings.

You state:

Men and women are given different mental, emotional, physical qualities but to say that a man's qualities in general make him more suitable to lead the household and therefore all men are given this responsibililty by God is a bit of a leap. If a husband has the qualities to lead a household and the wife not, then the leading of the household will fall naturally upon the husband. There are cases where the qualities possessed by the wife would make her the 'natural' leader of the household and in those cases, for the sake of the household, the wife should lead. To say that God has appointed man the leader of the home is not taking into account the thousands of variations that Allah has created among the individual men and women of the world. Men, in general, may have the qualities that would, in general, make them the natural leaders in the home but not every home follows the general rule and therefore to say that God has ordained all husbands to be the leader in all homes because of the general qualities bestowed upon men does not quite follow.

I do agree with you. The point is just that. If the wife possesses more leadership qualities, she would naturally assume the role. The verse relates to the general conditions. Particular cases may vary. The point that should be kept in mind is that for the general good of the household, if a situation arises where it seems that a particular dispute or a difference would result in the break up of the family, both the parties should reconsider their stance. And in case there is no chance of an agreement, then the wife should give in for the good of the family. And in case that does not happen, the man may resort to admonition and the subsequent allowances given by the Qur’an, for the sole purpose of saving the household from being broken.

You state:

If a husband has authority over his wife at home then it implies that a man has authority over a woman in society. Children learn what they live.

I tend to disagree with you here. Children are not just exposed to the husband-wife relationship. They also see the brother-sister, the mother-son relationships. If a proper balance is maintained such an attitude shall not develop.

Moreover, I would further like to clarify here that a congenial household is one where things go on smoothly. In such households, there is never a question of "who the boss is?". But I am sure you will agree with me that all human beings are not always "reasonable". Sometimes a very good woman has to live with an unreasonable man, or vice versa. Only in such cases, does the matter become intricate. If the woman is faced with an unreasonable man, she should try her utmost to correct the situation with love, caring and giving in. Such an attitude is likely to better the situation in some time. If a man is faced with the same situation, he is also required to do the same, except that if he feels that a soft hand is only contributing further to the recalcitrance of the "unreasonable" woman. He may resort to "lightly" penalizing her. I must also state here that in such situations, if the husband does not take a slightly stronger stance, it would not result in improving the pshche of the children, any more than seeing their parents fight all the time.

You write:

In order for a home to reflect an 'equal' society which Islam promotes, both husband and wife must have authority over each other. Both are mature adults who entered willingly into a partership and must work together to make the partnership thrive. To give one authority over the other is destroying the partnership and making it a subservient relationship. No matter how benevolent, gentle and loving the husband may be, the wife, by definition of being under the husband's authority (no matter the degree), is subservient.

Islam does not promote an "equal" society, it wants to promote a "just" society. I am sure you do appreciate the difference between the two terms. The "partnership" between a husband and a wife, like any other partnership needs division of labor and definition of authority. I do appreciate that under normal circumstances, it should be exactly as you say. But that is only the case where no misunderstandings, no unreasonableness and no disputes arise. That normally is not the case. Even in ordinary partnerships, there is normally a partnership deed to resolve such situations. Why should we object if there is one in this particular partnership. As I wrote earlier, to have a good, sound, organized household, which is a requirement for a good, sound and organized society, in general, a man and a woman may sometimes have to go against their liking for the macro benefit of the family.

I therefore, believe that the statement of the Qur’an, as I understand it, does not negate the "partnership" element in the husband-wife relationship.

You write:

To say that a husband has authority over his wife is a very broad statement. I have been told that a woman must obey her husband in every matter that does not violate the Quran. This would mean that a husband can restrict a woman's contact with the community, he has direct control over her actions and her person - which is not the case.

I agree with you. This is the general interpretation but I do not ascribe to it.

You write:

Could you please state what you believe to be the limitations of a husband's authority (besides ordering to do something interfere with her responsiblities to God). Does he have control of her movements in the community, her dress, her choice of friends? I Have read some material that says this is so by using the same arguments you have used and was wondering your opinion on the matter.

I would not like to specify, what my opinion is regarding "the limitations of a husband’s authority", because my judgment is no criterion or standard for anyone else. I would like to restrict myself to the presentation my understanding of Islamic Shari`ah. I would also like to state here that a good family, as you have also stressed, is one which works as a team. There never arises the question of who the boss is. Both man and woman are "reasonable" and caring for each other. But as we know that is not always the case. One of the two parties is not as reasonable as should be. In such cases, the problem of authority structures and hierarchy may arise. But even in such cases, it is not for a third party to decide the limitations of the husband’s authority. It is basically the two concerned parties that will have to strike a balance that is acceptable for both. In case the woman has to deal with an unreasonable man, she, for the sake of safeguarding the family from breaking up, herself has to decide how much of her freedom is she willing to give up. There could easily be a case where the woman is not willing to give up even an inch of her freedom and neither is the man willing to give her any freedom. In such cases, divorce may become inevitable. While in other cases, corrective action on the part of either of the two may help save the family.

It must be remembered, my friend, that organised interaction between individuals is a matter of "give and take". People who are "All Win" people by nature and who are not willing to let others "win", normally tend to lose all. Whenever people interact with each other, adjustments are required on their part. A family unit is no exception.

Lucky are those men and women who find partners who make their lives a blessing. While most of the others have to make adjustments to live a peaceful life. Whatever the case may be, the important thing to remember under all circumstances is that the life of this world is a test. Some are being tested with "good times", while others with "bad" and even "miserable times". We must also remember that a blessing – whether  it be wealth, good health or a peaceful marital life – is a privilege, not a right. And like every other privelege it entails certain responsibilities. The more priveleged a person, the more he shall be accountable for. We must never forget that the life of this world – however long it may seem – is just a temporary phase in our lives. "Good" and "Bad" of this world are of no significance, when compared to the "success" and "failure" of our real and ultimate life, which depends purely on our behaviour in this temporary "testing" phase.

I hope this helps.

Regards

The Learner

Home Page

Use this "Home Page" link only if you have opened this page by following an external link