A Debate between Amina Assilmi and Deborah Scroggins1

On November 7th, 1992, a debate took place at the University of Wisconsin on the issue of “Women’s Rights and Roles in Islam.” The debate took place between Aminah Assilmi, a television writer and producer as well as the director of the International Union of Muslim Women, and Deborah Scroggins, a staff writer for the Atlantic Journal Constitution. Both of the participants are highly educated, Amina Assilmi having degrees in Education, Communications, and Broadcasting, and Deborah Scroggins holding a B.A. in History and an M.A. in International Affairs. This latter has written a series of articles in the Atlantic Journal Constitution essentially portraying Muslim women as being the most oppressed creatures in the world, directly attributing the root of their oppression to none other than the Holy Qur’an and the religion of Islam.

Aminah Assilmi took on the task of confronting these allegations, presenting clear and well-founded arguments defending the Islamic worldview, and establishing a difference between the teachings of Islam, Shari‘ah laws, and the un-Islamic “cultural contamination” which is responsible, in some cases, for some oppressive ideas which have unfortunately become legislation, and presented as “Islamic laws” in certain Muslim-populated countries. Although many issues were touched upon in the debate, the main issues we will present here are: 1) the question of women’s equality with men, 2) hijab, 3) zina or adultery laws, and finally 4) inheritance laws, divorce, polygyny, and sexual segregation.

Deborah Scroggins addressed the issue of the Qur’anic verses dealing with the status of women, and how they have been interpreted by some to make women somehow unequal to men. This was refuted by Assilmi who demonstrated that being equal does not imply being identical. The Holy Qur’an mentions that men have a degree over women (2:228); but that does not mean in “superiority,” but rather, in “responsibility.” Assilmi goes on to list the numerous responsibilities that a Muslim man has compared to the relatively few obligations of a Muslim woman. A man, she explains, is responsible for himself, his wife and children, his parents and grand-parents, his wife’s parents, and so on, while a woman is responsible essentially for her own behavior.

Deborah Scroggins pointed out that this “degree” of men over women has resulted in legalizing obedience to women to their husbands, and manifests itself in laws in Pakistan and Iran forbidding women to travel without the permission of their husbands, fathers or male guardians, depending on the case. The issue was not addressed directly by Assilmi but it is worth discussing here. A person who is born Muslim or becomes a Muslim is expected to abide by Islamic laws. Hence, a woman must obey her husband in all that is Islamic, but it is here obligation to disobey him if he tries to involve her in anything which is contrary to Islam. Of course, with every right comes obligations, and a man may only exert his right over his wife if he fulfils his obligations towards her. For example, if a husband does not financially support his wife, he has no say as to her freedom of movement. If, in the early days of Islam, women were exhorted to only travel in the company of male relatives, it was because the Muslims were at war, and women risked being taken as slaves by their enemies. When viewed within its historical context, this rule was not oppressive. It was a manifestation of Islam’s love for its womenfolk, which wants protect from any possible hazards to their lives, honor, and property. It was protection, not oppression. Where such conditions do not exist, however, such restrictions do not apply. Furthermore, the Prophet insisted that women were allowed to leave their homes for professional and personal purposes.

In order to further substantiate the Islamic worldview, Assilmi presented the reality of women’s exalted role in Islam quoting from the relevant Qur’anic verses and from the ahadith or traditions of the Holy Prophet. She explains that Islam has recognized the testimony of women, admitting that in certain cases the Shari‘ah requires two female testimonies when only one male is required. Nevertheless, in other cases, her testimony is considered of equal value, and in one particular case, it is actually stronger than the man’s. Assilmi informs her audience about the Muslim woman’s obligation to education, her right to divorce, her right to equal pay, and her right to agree to a marriage or to refuse. She points out that, according to Holy Qur’an, women are not responsible for bringing sin into the world. The Muslim Scripture stresses that both Adam and Eve were tempted, both wronged themselves, both repented, and both were forgiven (7:19-25; 20:120-123). In the eyes of Allah, she explains, men and women are the same in terms of obligations: they get the same rewards for the same acts, and they both have the same chances of going to Heaven. Assilmi also gives examples of women intellectuals in Islam, and shows how Muslim women have been able to plead their cases, present their arguments, and complain to the leader of the Muslim Ummah without any fear. She goes on to note that 1,400 years ago, Islam gave women complete and total property rights. As such, Muslim women have the right to use and dispose of their assets freely. Assilmi also points out that, in 1870, Great Britain passed the Married Women’s Property Act, which resulted in quite a scandal. Even nowadays, in some parts of the developed world, women do not have complete rights over their assets. It becomes clear from Assilmi’s arguments that there is no question of inequality of women in Islam.

Assilmi refutes such preposterous statements regarding the oppression of women in Islam at the beginning of her introduction, proudly proclaiming that her head-scarf was her “badge of honor,” which did not impede her from being an active person, which was not imposed, but rather a declaration of her faith, and a manifestation of her dignity. She exposes the harsh reality of discrimination against hijab-wearing Muslim women in the West, explaining how it is virtually impossible for them to get jobs, unless they bare themselves, how they are laughed at, feared, and in the worst of cases, harassed. This, she decries, is an abuse of her human rights, something which deeply offends this obviously sensitive woman. Scroggins eventually agrees that women should have the right to wear hijab if they pleased, but dislikes its imposition on women who do not wish to wear it. This rebuttal was not directly answered by Assilmi, but is deserves some elaboration.

All societies have standards. Even in the West, plazas and restaurants have standards of dress. One cannot enter certain places without wearing shoes or a shirt. Certain places require dress shoes, and some even require a shirt and a tie. We can list many examples of dress standards required indoors and outdoors. Islam has its own standards. These standards may be much more conservative than those of other cultures, but they must be respected. One must abide by the laws of the country in which one lives. In the case of a Muslim, one cannot obey the un-Islamic ones. The same principle applies to someone who chooses to live in an Islamic state governed by Islamic law: one must conform or choose to live elsewhere. It is as simple as that. Furthermore, there is no law obliging Muslim women to veil themselves in Western countries. Those who do so are not being forced by anyone. They do so out of their own free will. So, why shout that they are oppressed?

Another issue that was raised was the zina or adultery laws. Scroggins went on to defend the “freedom to fornicate,” something which Assilmi refuted intelligently. Fornication or adultery is not an individual act as it affects all of society is destructive. It affects the entire family and the society as a whole. It is thus a crime against society and results in the problem of illegitimate children which, in most non-Muslim societies, have essentially no rights. The crisis of single mothers cannot be overlooked, considering that most of the fathers do not pay support payments to their children born out of wedlock. This is concrete oppression against women. Under Islamic law, it is the man’s responsibility to support all of his offspring.

Scroggins pointed out the sad reality that adultery and rape laws have been fused in Pakistan, so that if a woman claims to have been raped, yet cannot bring forth four male witnesses to the act, she will receive the punishment of a fornicator or an adulterer and find herself among the ranks of thousands of women who have been imprisoned for periods of ten years for such “crimes.” Assilmi rightfully declared that the Pakistan zina laws are un-Islamic and are the direct manifestation of cultural oppression. The organization she heads has been fighting against such “cultural horrors” and has even pleaded their case before the courts in Pakistan, showing to them the relevant Qur’anic verses. The Holy Qur’an states that if a woman is accused of adultery, and there are no witnesses, her testimony is worth more than her accuser’s. If she declares her innocence four times, and on the fifth time invokes the wrath of Allah upon herself if she is lying, she is considered innocent (24:8-9). Assilmi admits, though, that the problem is not particularly easy to resolve in such countries as the root of the problem is the peoples own ignorance of Islam.

Scroggins expressed her belief that it was unfair that a Muslim man is allowed to divorce his wife in a direct, immediate, manner, whereas a woman must go through litigation. Assilmi has pointed out the Qur’anic point of view earlier in her discussion, stressing that a Muslim man was not allowed to irrevocably divorce her wife in one shot. Rather, an irrevocable divorce required three readings of the divorce formula on three different occasions (2:228). It is true, though, that this has been shortened to a mere one-time recitation among Sunni Muslims who have become distanced from, or who are ignorant of, the Holy Qur’an. This is another problem that needs to be resolved by returning to the Book of Allah.

As to inheritance, Scroggins feels that it is somehow unfair that men received more than women. The reasons for this become clear when one examines the financial obligations of a Muslim man compared to those of a Muslim woman. A Muslim man must support his entire family while a Muslim woman has no such obligation. Even if she works, the money that she earns is her personal property and she can use it as she pleases. It is not her obligation to pay a penny towards her maintenance or that of her family. Assilmi pointed out, though, that it is a shame that people keep overlooking the fact that women were actually included in the inheritance. In many parts of the world, the inheritance goes directly to the eldest son. Families are torn apart because of inheritance. Islam has made it a clear-cut affair: the problems are already fixed. Furthermore, Islamic inheritance laws apply only in Islamic states ruled by Islamic laws. They do not apply outside in the Western world where one can divide one’s inheritance as one wishes.

Scroggins also felt that the fact that Muslim men can have up to four wives while Muslim women cannot was somehow “unfair.” It does not take a highly intelligent person to comprehend that polyandry can only result in a society of chaos. If a woman copulates with several husbands, there is no way to determine the father of her children and who has obligations towards them. Polyandry goes against the laws of nature, whereas polygyny takes into consideration man’s natural drives, limiting them, and setting out criteria and obligations.

The issue of sexual segregation was the final one to be addressed in the debate. Assilmi expressed to Scroggins that she was opposed to strict sexual segregation. She supports sexual segregation in the cases of dancing and socializing, but feels that it is not necessary in the work place, in a professional capacity or in an educational environment. She explained that strict isolation of women, known as purdah, actually originates from cultures outside of Islam.

In no place in this brief, but highly informative debate, does Assilmi deny that there are outright cases of oppression of women in many Muslim countries. What she has aimed to do is establish the origins and causes of such oppression. Many of the oppressive legislation against women in certain Muslim-populated countries is a direct manifestation of cultural oppression. It is unfortunate that such oppressive measures are called “Islamic.” One of the most terrible problems facing Muslims is cultural contamination in which Muslims from particular backgrounds want to justify their cultures claiming that they are Islamic. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as an Islamic culture. What Islam is meant to be is a determining factor in particular cultures which determines what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The one thing all Muslims have in common is their high esteem for the Holy Qur’an. Once Muslims can free themselves from the shackles of ignorance and return to the Holy Qur’an, then, and only then, will they be able to resolve some of these problems which are contaminating the Muslim Ummah.

It cannot be denied that there is oppression of women in Muslim-populated countries, but Islam is not to blame. When we speak about Islam, we speak about Islam: the ideal. It is the true teachings of Islam that the world Islamic movement is fighting to implement. Muslims are unfortunately the only people whose faults and shortcomings are blamed on their religion. Anything negative existing within their cultures is blamed on their faith. When someone from a Muslim background commits an act of terrorism, he is labeled a “Muslim terrorist,” an “Islamic fundamentalist,” and a “religious extremist.” When tyrants, oppressors and murderers from the West commit atrocities they are never labeled as “Christian terrorists.” Muslims have unfortunately been made victims of a slanderous propaganda scheme which is determined to dirty the image of Islam.

Are women not oppressed in Western countries? They most certainly are. Women have been the victims of oppression since the dawn of humankind. Women were slaves, oppressed, and exploited in the past, and now they are slaves, exploited, and oppressed in the name of “women’s liberation,” “liberty,” and “freedom.” If we look closely at the ideology of Islam, it will become clear to any open-minded person that Islam is not the terrible oppressor of women, but her greatest liberator, which enables her to recover her honor, her dignity, and her rights. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and the fastest growing religion in the United States. Over two-thirds of converts to Islam in the West are women, and most of them are highly educated. Faced with such statistics, one must ask oneself a very simple question: How can it be that women are at the forefront of a movement that allegedly oppresses them?

• 1. This video review was originally published in April 1996 in Mahjubah 15.4 (143): 3-5.