Muslim Brotherhood & Women’s Rights (1)

In this section, we present the fatwas of the Brotherhood and their philosophy on several aspects related to women and their rights. The aspects are as follows:

1- Relationship with the Husband.
2- Sexual pleasure & Intimacy.
3- Physical and psychological health.
4- Dress Code.
5- Work.

First: Relationship with the Husband:

We have already pointed to the inability of the Brotherhood to provide a practical and actual remedy to the problem of marriage, which is linked to several complex and interrelated economic and social factors. The Brotherhood always tends to repeat the narrative platitudes in an attempt to avoid the problem and not be involved in detecting the lack of a detailed program that would address and solve the rising social problems, including the marriage issues.
This position is reiterated in full detail in issue No. 37, released in June 1979. Magdi Diab, from Beni Suef Province, asks a question about this theme:

1- Shaykh al-Khatib answers:
The issue of marriage has become our problematic reality; the dowry is large, and jewelry gifts and trousseau are prohibitively expensive in addition to the housing crisis. What is the solution? The only viable solution is to return to the law of God, the hardships we are facing are caused by being away of the law of Allah: “but whosoever will turn away from My Reminder, his will be a strait life, and on the Day of Resurrection we shall raise him up blind.” Islam does not place limits on the wherewithal of marriage due to disparity in wealth and poverty, prosperity and adversity. Such matters are measure against the overall ability; the dowry may be an iron ring, or a mug of dates, or teaching the Book of God [The Qur’an], should the two parties agree on that. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to a man who wants to get married, “Bring something, even if it is only an iron ring, he could not find anything. The Messenger of Allah said to him: “Have you (memorized) anything of the Quran?” He said: “Yes, Surah such and such and Surah such and such,” naming them. The Messenger of Allah said: “I marry her to you for what you know of the Quran.” Narrated by Al -Bukhari and Muslim.
The master of the people of Medina and its scholar – Saeed Bin Musayyib- married off his daughter to a poor student for two dirhams and did not turn him off. Bin Musayyib considered his knowledge and piety, rather than his social status and appearance. Similarly, Abdul Rahman bin ‘Auf married for a dowry of five dirhams and the Prophet approved it. In reality, Islam considers the scant dowry as a sign of a blessed woman and a good boon to marriage. One Hadith narration states: “the greatest blessed marriage is that of easy expenses.”, also:” A good woman is whose dowry is little, easy to marry and enjoys good manners. And a bad woman is whose dowry is much, difficult to marry and of bad manners.” Humanity’s only solution is to go back to this wellspring of Islam so that we lead easier and happier life; this is the remedy for the malady as simple as that.

Critique:
“Returning to the law of God is the Solution.” Simply put while losing sight of all details, actual or potential. The Brotherhood ignores the fact that contemporary marriage is a perplexing issue, and that the plight of young people will not end even if the dowry is an iron ring or a mug of dates. The purpose is that the couple would have the wherewithal to start a family, such as a marital home, a fixed monthly income to offset the costs of living and its creature comforts, that is, food, drink, medicine, transportation, rent, and a whole host of other items. The patterns reviewed by the author of the fatwa belong to a different historical stage. The inquirer speaks about the housing crisis, and no comment from the Brotherhood on this point, they know that the crisis referred to cannot be addressed with eloquent words and recounting old anecdotes. The convenient alternative is to resort to silence as if no one asked the question!
It is common knowledge that marriage is preceded by an engagement period. Thus, are there any rights for the fiancé? Is it possible to get married before the would-be couple is acquainted with one another? In fact, the couple’s knowledge of each other is necessary so that disharmony and differences, which spoil the marital life later, would be precluded.

This overriding concern never cease to preoccupy Muslim youth who seek to adhere to their religion and, in tandem, keep pace with the spirit of the times.

The answer comes in Issue No. 12, released in May 1977.
It is not permissible for a man to see a foreign woman – which is marriageable to him – except that which is visible of her in compliance with the Prophetic Hadith that states:
“When a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.”

The fiancé may see of his fiancée, the face, neck, hands and feet, and he may repeat the look and concentrate at her charms above the clothes without permission if his lust is not aroused and without being alone with her (Khilwa ).
Can the engaged, through this [quick] look, be able to recognize the full features of his future wife?

Absolutely, marriage is not confined to the physical and sensory relationship, then how can the would-be couple get to know each other? Does the single look at the face, neck, feet and hands offer knowledge of the mental faculty, the pattern of thinking, the dominant behaviors and the level of awareness and perception? Such matters especially become more complicated and hard for those living overseas, and are forced to be exposed to the dominating traditions and customs out there.

In issue No. 23, released in April 1978, a student resident from West Germany asks:
“The society here compels one of us to get married for safeguarding one’s chastity. Marriage from Arab women causes several problems; therefore, it is easier and better to marry a non-Arab woman. What is the ruling here? [And] What do you think about post-marriage relationship just for acquainting and understanding each other?”
The answer comes as follows:
Marriage to a religious Muslim is far better than marrying a mere hereditary Muslim. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said: “Choose the one, who is religiously committed, (otherwise) you will be losers”
Marriage from a Muslim woman is fared better than non-Muslim. This is true if the wife is most unlikely to convert to the religion of her husband, or brings up the children on her religion [other than Islam]; or that the children will be affected by customs and traditions of their maternal family. However, if the husband is able to impact and guide his wife by calling her to this religion [Islam], and raise his children accordingly, in this case he is allowed to marry the non-Muslim based on the immense tolerance that [Islam] gives to the People of the Book.
As for post-marriage relationship, Islam forbids being alone or hanging out with any female without supervision of his or her family. If tolerated, this unlawful privacy might lead to loss of honor and stripping the dignity of the Muslim. It is good to follow what Islam enjoins in this respect. The messenger (Peace be upon him) says: “A man is not alone with a woman but the third of them is Ash-Shaitan (Satan or devil).” Narrated by Ahmad.
Critique:
Does The Brotherhood deny and prohibit what God has permitted? [And] How they come up with such self-made reasoning that the husband should seek to sway his wife [i.e. from the People of the Book]. It is like as if the husband is playing a silly game versus her; either win or lose, without aspiring for a life of tranquility, peace and security. It is also like that if Islam needs her as Muslim, while they are so many of them! There is no relationship between the two sexes (even within the family’s and the relatives’ circles). No good comes out of conflicting with the modern time, and dovetailing it with flawed thinking. Then, marriage becomes an experience controlled by coincidence or accident, which may be successful or not, without the ability of early recognition of what similarities or dissimilarities may be between the couple, that makes their company possible or otherwise. In actuality, contemporary conditions are glaringly different from what prevailed in ancient times, and it is not detrimental to keep pace with latest developments.
Islam is not at all at odds with reason, or with what the vicissitudes of life might impose on social progress and stability. After all, human society, with what it has of evil and corruption, is not a jungle of animals where morality and principles are lost. In fact, it is the Brotherhood’s ossification of thinking that leads right to the abyss. Are they greatly blinded to discern the rationale behind seeing one’s future spouse? Have they missed the point in the behavior of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), which gives salutary lessons and reminders for those who seek understanding and insight.

In issue No. 34, released March 1979, reader Hamdi Mustafa from Cairo asks:
“In Al-Dawah magazine Issue of Jumada II, 1398 AH , p. 17, I read that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prevented Ali bin Abi Talib from marrying second wife to his daughter Fatima. How can this be reconciled with the Quran, which explicitly allows polygamy? Please explain and clarify.”
How does the Brotherhood understands the purport of what the noble Prophet did, and how they are going to answer? Let us see!
This version is true, as narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Abdullah Ibn Abi Malika narrated that Miswar bin Makhrama told him that he heard the Messenger of Allah when he was on the pulpit, as saying: “Banu Hisham bin Mughirah asked me for permission to marry their daughter to ‘Ali bin Abu Talib. I will not give them permission, and I will not give them permission, and I will not give them permission, unless ‘Ali bin Abu Talib wants to divorce my daughter and marry their daughter, for she is a part of me, and what bothers her bothers me, and what upsets her upsets me.”
This story does not conflict with the rule of polygamy, but it turns out that if a man has committed himself to a sort of condition and promise to his wife that he will not marry another woman, then he should fulfill the condition and the promise. Should he violates that condition, the wife has every right to cancel the marriage contract. Islam gave the woman or her guardian the right to stipulate this condition (i.e. that the man should not marry another wife) at the time of the marriage conclusion. This is according to school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and was preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. Furthermore, Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) was the most deserving woman of this right in this regard, and marrying another woman in addition to her was not recommended or accepted because she enjoyed the top rank in good breeding and status. Therefore, no one was to be preferred over her.

Critique:
How did the Brotherhood treat this authentic case? What most matters to them is to emphasize that it does not conflict with the principle of polygamy, and ignore the great fatherly love of the caring Prophet (peace be upon him) towards his daughter. The Brotherhood cannot draw a logical conclusion from the occasion. If a woman and her guardian have the right to overrule the husband’s second marriage, is it not the right of the judge to rule otherwise? Is it not possible to limit marriage within the framework of permissibility, in the sense that polygamy is conditional on the consent of the wife, and that the individual condition becomes a general condition and the husband does not have the right to do as he pleases?
As for end of the fatwa where the mufti opined on the peculiarity of Fatima Al-Zahraa, (may God be pleased with her), and that her husband [‘Ali bin Abu Talib] was discouraged from remarriage, with reference to her good breeding and status. The kernel of truth in here is that this peculiar right was only meant to defend the principle of unconditional polygamy. Many of the Prophet’s noble companions exercised polygamy; and their wives were of good breeding and highly respected as well. Then were those companions wrong in such practice? Were they told that they did injustice to their wives?
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was legislating out of his fatherhood. He is not like any human being, but the Brotherhood closes their minds to the hidden wisdom and profound meaning, and did not get it right.
Islam is in no contradiction with the human logic and common sense together. Par excellence, Islam is very tolerant religion that does not call for oppression and dominance. The marital relationship is based on balance and tolerance; and the husband should not be stubborn and dominating.
In this same context, we should take a gander at the Fatwa in issue No. 20, issued in January 1978, when a Muslim wife sent a question:
“My husband bans me from visiting my family and relatives. Does it permissible for me to go out to visit them without him know?”

The answer comes as follows:
“If there are no valid reasons for the ban that husband is well-aware of, then he is wrong. Women are required to be affectionate to and in contact with their fathers and mothers; and exchanging visiting is a kind of affection. Our Fatwa for our Muslim sister is to obey her husband’s order so that his disobedience may not lead to any damage. She must tell her parents and her family of her husband’s position so that they may excuse her. We ask Allah to guide that mistaken husband and his like-minded ones, to the good deeds and behavior.
Critique:
The gravity of the fatwa is that it grants the husband absolute right without restrictions, while it would have been possible to take the chance to provide a solution to a recurring problem in Muslim families that often leads to divorce. The husband is the only one who may or may not allow his wife to visit her family. What can be said is that the husband is not right, however, it is is necessary that the wife must comply to shun the forbidden!
What logic is this? It has no other explanation but that woman is no partner in the marital home. Rather, she is deemed a subordinate to her husband; and she only has to hear and obey!