Women in the Quran Linda Darwish The view of women in Islam has been a contentious topic in recent public discourse, but few have a firm grasp on the quranic material about women. The Quran presents women and men as equal in creation, created of the same nafs , or soul (4.1), and as having spiritual equality. Women and men make their own confessions of faith (60.12) and are accountable for themselves on the Day of Judgment (33.35, 73; 45.21–22). The Quran warns unbelievers that God will hold people accountable for female infanticide (81.8–9), allegedly practiced as a shield against excessive poverty. The Quran provides women protections against abandonment in marriage and ensures support for their them and their children (2.226–32; 4.4, 19), admonishing men to practice fairness, equity, and kindness, and reminding them to fear God in their dealings with women. For many contemporary readers, however, the Quran’s view of women is sharply at odds with principles of social equality and justice. Woman’s disadvantageous position in marriage (2.223; 4.34), divorce (2.226–32; 65.1–6; though it should be noted that the most egregious disadvantages are mainly via jurisprudence), inheritance (4.11, 177), and bearing witness (2.282), among other things, are cited as evidence of the Quran’s regressive attitude towards women as compared to today’s standards. However, it is the exegetes, who have typically been men, who translate the Quran’s references to women into normative ideas, laws, or standards of practice, while voices of women have habitually been muted, absent, or subjugated to a patriarchal hermeneutical framework. Thus in the interpretation of problematic passages of the Quran for today, presuppositions and hermeneutics are important to consider. Amina Wadud Muhsin, an African-American feminist Muslim academic, suggests three types of interpretation regarding women in the Quran: traditional, reactive, and holistic. Traditional readings reflect a patriarchal construction; reactive readings vindicate an externally imposed feminist construction; a holistic reading, Muhsin’s preference, places the female experience at the center of interpretation, while ignoring the exegetical tradition. The premise of Muhsin’s approach is that the commonly perceived “problem” of women in Islam is not due to the Quran itself but to the application of a faulty, male-centered hermeneutic imposed upon the text. The aim of the holistic approach is to “unread” these patriarchal narratives. In her interpretation of Sūra 4.34, frequently taken as proof of the inferiority of women in general and specifically in the context of marriage, Muhsin argues that the Quran’s intent is not to establish male authority or to sanction punishment for female disobedience but to restore marital harmony. Her argument turns on a study of the verse’s four key terms: qānitāt (“good”), nushūz (“disobedient”), ta ‘ a (“obey”), and ḍaraba (“hit” or “beat”). Among these, her reinterpretation of nushūz has the most to offer, but even this is of limited value to an egalitarian exegesis. Commonly translated as “disobedient,” Muhsin notes that the term is also used of men in 4.128. If a woman fears nushūz , translated “contempt” or “evasion” in some translations, from her husband, they should try to settle their differences amicably. Giving it the same sense in 4.34, Muhsin suggests the verse means that when either party contributes to the breakdown of the marriage, steps may be taken to restore harmony. Muhsin fails to note, however, that the husband’s uncooperative behavior is criticized in 4.128 in the context of unfairness to his multiple wives. On the term ḍaraba , Muhsin argues that the word has broader meaning than “strike,” and that it is not the much stronger Arabic second form of the verb, ḍarraba , meaning “to strike repeatedly,” both of which do little to convince that the term is thereby rendered innocuous. Another contentious topic in the Quran has to do with women’s covering and seclusion. While eight verses use the word ḥijāb (7.46; 17.45; 19.17; 38.32; 41.5; 42.51; 33.53; 83.15), none refers to an article of clothing, and only two (19.17 and 33.53) have anything to do with women. Sūra 33.53, the context of which is said to be the aftermath of one of the prophet’s marriages, instructs Muslim men to be respectful of Muhammad’s and his wives’ privacy within their domestic space. Accordingly, if men are to ask Muhammad’s wives for anything, they must do so from behind a partition ( ḥijāb ). This is explained as a matter of “purity.” It is added that none should marry Muhammad’s wives after his death. Despite the passage’s restricted reference to the prophet’s domestic space, exegetes have relied on the tendency of the community to make the “mothers of the believers” role models for Muslim women a justification for extending its application to all women. The notion of female covering is left largely to Sūras 24.31 and 33.59, neither of which uses the word ḥijāb , but which more effectively capture its popular meaning, evincing as they do, the notion of the outward display of modesty and the symbolism of protection from sexual harassment respectively. In summary, the quranic view of women is neither monolithic nor static, but rather within certain boundaries remains subject to the perspectives and methods of its varied interpreters.