The Woman's Voice Asks the Leaders of Thought

Dr. Ishaq Musa al-Husayni is one of the professors of Arabic literature at the American University of Beirut, and one of the luminaries of Arab and Islamic thought. We are pleased that he here answers questions put to him by The Woman's Voice, for the enlightenment of our readers, men and women, on a thorny subject that few dare to approach. Our aim in this is to defend the rights of woman and to raise her causes here and there, until they end in absolute equality between her and man.

*

Q. 1 — Do you not see that in some of the texts of religious law there is injustice against woman? What is your opinion of the differentiation in inheritance between the sexes, and of the diminution of woman's testimony merely because she is female? And of man's right to divorce and to plural marriage?

Q. 2 — To what extent can ijtihad in interpretation solve these questions?

Q. 3 — Would it harm the Islamic religion if some change were made in its worldly texts, so that it might keep pace with the spirit of this age?

A. 1 — I hold the view of Imam Muhammad Abduh and Sayyid Rashid Rida and others, that legislation relating to man's material life is capable of development, on condition that it come as the result of the nation's development on the one hand, and as the result of its consensus on the other. The lawgivers tied legislation to causes, and the disappearance of the cause requires the changing of the legislation. This has happened in the history of the Muslims.

As for the old Islamic legislation, it was the result of causes that made it necessary; it was not unjust, but rather cut off the root of corruption in the earth. There is nothing today to prevent changing the rules you mention, if the Muslims truly feel that they are unjust; for harm is to be removed, and religion is ease, not hardship.

2 — I believe that ijtihad in interpretation — indeed, ijtihad in understanding the spirit of legislation and its causes — solves these questions. Before that, the Islamic world needs scholars deeply versed in religion and thoroughly learned in the psychological and social sciences, so that they may dive into the problems, analyze them, and prescribe for them the healing remedy. The fault of most jurists today is that they are acquainted with the principles of jurisprudence but lack acquaintance with the psychological and social sciences. And the fault of those acquainted with these sciences is that they are ignorant of the principles of jurisprudence. If the class that combines the two sides should appear, we may expect to see something new in legislation.

A. 3 — No, it does not harm the Islamic religion to change its worldly texts so that it may keep pace with the spirit of the age. Ijtihad, public interest, analogy, and consensus are channels fit to solve every problem. The purpose of legislation is nothing but the good of the people. In the modern age the Muslims have adopted civil legislation in criminal and commercial matters and in transactions of every kind, save for some Islamic peoples who still live a life closer to the primitive state. As for personal status, the rulings of religious law are still applied to it among Muslims and non-Muslims alike in the East. And if the Muslims agree that these rulings must change, that is their right. We read recently that Egypt has narrowed some of these rulings on divorce and plural marriage for the good of Egyptian society, and its action was met with approval. What the Muslims hate is that laws be imposed upon them by force!