Preface
The Islamic worldview is autonomous and complete—a comprehensive framework that derives its legitimacy from its own principles and seeks validation from no external system of thought or philosophy. In clearer terms, Islam does not wholesale endorse present-day “liberal” or “conservative” ideological constructs. Some individual ideas within these frameworks may align with Islamic thought, yet they do not necessarily emerge from the same fundamental beliefs. Islam stands independent of contemporary political categorizations, and this essay is not an attempt to defend its principles against these political trends.
My aim is to address Muslim sisters and brothers, particularly those from Kashmiri and South Asian backgrounds, who are influenced by or align with Western liberal thought in good faith, or seek to adopt Western liberal ethics without delving into its details. I am also speaking to people and friends who may or may not be aware of my position on Western ethical norms and wish to understand it. I hope to briefly unravel for them—or for you—the potential dangers and shortcomings of Western secular and liberal ethics, and to illustrate how the Western concept of women’s liberation and emancipation can, in reality, lead to the exploitation of a woman’s body, the desecration of her dignity, and a threat to the idea of womanhood itself.
Before forming any concrete opinions, I urge you to pause and understand that the contents of this essay may challenge some of your existing notions. I request that you read this piece as objectively as possible, setting aside prior biases or defenses. As we move through the critiques and facts, you will, InShaAllah (God willing), see how each claim has substance and requires serious reflection.
We will not only discuss the inconsistencies of Western philosophies; we will also briefly explore how Islam fills the gaps where modern -isms fall short, and how the Shari’ah addresses social issues affecting women, men and society as a whole that Western ethics has either failed to address or has even exacerbated.
I have limited my exploration of the presented ideas to what is necessary for the purpose of this essay. I have designed this text with size and accessibility in mind. I have avoided, as much as possible, long philosophical ramblings and complex language—not because I doubt the readers’ intellect, but to simplify overrated or exaggerated concepts for both you and me. This essay serves as an overview. Please refer to the footnotes where present, as they are crucial for context and further exploration. At the end of the essay, you will find a list of resources and recommended readings.
Contextually, this essay consists of three parts. The first, “Epistemological Differences,” defines the epistemic foundations of both frameworks: present-day Western ethics, and Islam, highlighting the differences between them. The second part, “Solutions for women within Modern Western Ethics,” mainly discusses feminism, its origins, history, and problems. Then we’ll move on to the reasons why the Western approach became the dominant global ethic, and how it fails to remain morally consistent. In the third part, we briefly explore the Islamic approach, its extensive and nuanced solutions, and touch on the misrepresentations and misleading narratives that deviate one from the Truth. Finally, we draw parallels between West and Kashmir, and seek to understand what we can change to address our current social issues, particularly those relating to Kashmiri women.
I have italicized words that are non-English or required emphasis. The references I have provided are fairly popular, well-versed sources. It’s important to note that any translations, particularly those of the Qur’an and Hadith, inevitably lose some of the nuances and linguistic beauty inherent in the original Arabic. I have not addressed some topics in this essay. If you have any specific questions please feel free to email me or message me on Instagram.
For the sake of transparency, I must admit that I have unfortunately had my share of destructive doubts and pitfalls regarding my faith in the past. I later learned that these were primarily due to Western influences, misinformation, and my lack of knowledge about my religion. These influences managed to create a discomfort with abstaining from the reckless desires that Islam prohibits. The anti-Islam rhetoric on social and conventional media began to stand out, and I unintentionally started verifying Islam against Western values. When looking for explanations, I searched for answers in the wrong places, often from people who were not qualified to answer. I was constantly exposed to the abundantly available anti-Islam content, produced by Islamophobes or people who cannot accept the magnitude of Islam and its widespread adoption. This gradually lured me away from Islam and towards a life of confusion, and I found myself dissonant, purposeless, and in a state of crude apathy.
I overcame this phase of discontent with the help of knowledgeable friends I consulted, doing my best to find truth with sincerity and seeking knowledge from domain-specific scholars. Surprisingly, I come from a family that practiced Islam passionately, and I was surrounded by scholars and Muhadditheen. I was fortunate enough to have easy access to knowledge, and the Truth was served to me on a platter. Since what I should call my reversion to Islam, I have realized many people in my community are going through similar struggles, persuaded by western narratives of injustice, especially the misinformation linking injustice towards women with Islam. There is still much more for me and all of us to learn. With this essay, I am also attempting to reach out to individuals with empathy and an understanding of their potential position.
Part One: Epistemological Differences
When we speak about women’s rights, we are usually judging a system of morals based on its treatment of women and its rights and wrongs attributed to women. While we do that, some people, including Muslims, commit the fallacy of inconsistency by using present-day dominant Western philosophies as a precedent for judging other moral systems, and almost always compare these modern -isms with Islamic ethics.
We also, in Kashmir specifically, see Islam as an ethnic or cultural identity, confusing invented ideas, superstitions, stereotypes, and traditions with Islamic jurisprudence. We have started seeking morality in what is socially acceptable rather than in what is prescribed by Islam. For the most part, we never get to experience Islam in its unadulterated form in our homes. We are rarely presented with opportunities to learn and understand it from the basics. Since childhood, we are raised with materialistic priorities. Joining schools and getting good grades is set up as the ultimate metric of success, up until we are applauded for getting into “prestigious” colleges or ridiculed and humiliated for failing to do so. We study the world through secular, postcolonial, and oftentimes anti-theistic narratives. When we hit the ‘age of questions’^[Existential anxiety or inquiries in teenagers and young adults. See: Existential Anxiety in Adolescents: Prevalence, Structure, Association with Psychological Symptoms and Identity Development Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2006. ] and try making sense of the world around us, we find ourselves morally unequipped, doubtful, and dissonant. When we confront the out-of-context misrepresented information about Islam, we let the hesitation form, even when we are aware of our ignorance about Islam. That is when the dominant Western political and social paradigm starts to appeal. Its despotic global influence intimidates us. We begin questioning Islam through secular liberal eyes and start doubting the unintelligible knowledge we have about it.
Whether Islam or liberal philosophies prevail can be deduced intellectually, but no one can deny both theses are epistemologically different and the Western ethical paradigm is a radically shifting yardstick. It cannot be used to measure the objective framework of Islam.
Liberal Thought
Although the history of liberalism, the dominant Western ethic,^[In Western political discourse, both the Right (conservatives) and the Left (liberals) are underpinned by philosophical liberalism, even though they apply its principles differently.] begins in the 17th century with John Locke in England, contemporary liberal thought is heavily influenced by the Harm Principle of the utilitarian John Stuart Mill (19th century).^[Dubbed “the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century” by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Wikipedia] Mill’s Harm Principle was influenced by Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian framework, particularly the Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The Harm Principle is one of the central tenets upon which modern liberal societies morally lean. According to this principle, individuals should be free to pursue their desires, as long as they do not harm others.
John Mill also refines Bentham’s utilitarianism to address some of its shortcomings^[The Greatest Happiness principle, central to utilitarianism, is often critiqued with scenarios such as a severe case of gang rape, where the pleasure of many (the perpetrators) cannot justify the extreme pain and suffering of one individual (the victim). Such examples highlight a critical flaw in utilitarianism: it can justify morally reprehensible actions if they produce more overall happiness, ignoring significant individual harm.] by introducing a distinction between “lower” and “higher” pleasures and emphasizing individual liberty. His Principle of Utility states: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” This suggests that because human beings prefer happiness, pleasure becomes the ultimate metric for defining good. Therefore, the first part of the Harm Principle emerges: individuals should be free to pursue their desires. Mill argues that the desirability of something is evidenced by the fact that people desire it: “I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it.”
This “sole evidence”, however, is contested by many. Simply put, Mill is either saying that anything should be desired because people actually desire it, or that anything is desirable (wanted) because people do actually want it. However you rephrase it, it remains highly problematic.
If we take the first interpretation—that anything should be desired because people desire it—it fails to explain how desires align with moral goodness. Just because people desire something does not mean it is morally good or desirable in an ethical sense, which was famously pointed out by G.E. Moore (20th century) as a naturalistic fallacy.^[The naturalistic fallacy, as defined by G.E. Moore, is the error of deriving an “ought” (a moral claim) from an “is” (a factual claim). In other words, it assumes that just because something is a certain way (e.g., people desire it), it should be that way (e.g., it is morally good).] Others have argued that Mill’s reasoning commits additional logical fallacies like the fallacy of equivocation.
The second interpretation—that anything is desirable because people desire it—is equally flawed. It reduces desirability to a mere fact of human psychology, making the argument circular: something is desirable because people desire it, and people desire it because it is desirable. This provides no objective basis for determining what is morally good or desirable. Mill’s “evidence” leaves us with no clear evidence. And this, in all seriousness, is one of the most significant weaknesses in the foundations of the centuries old western liberal ethics.
Mill’s framework also suggests a subjective morality, where individuals define right and wrong based on personal beliefs and experiences. Yet, this subjectivity contradicts with the second part of the Harm Principle, which prohibits actions that harm others. However, what brings happiness and appears good to one person might harm another.”^[J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859. Utilitarianism, 1863. See also: Mohammed Hijab. The Problems With Liberalism. 2022.]
This brings us to the ideas of individualism and consent, which underpin much of post-Enlightenment Western thought, including liberalism. Individualism posits that individuals own their bodies and have the right to make decisions about them, provided those decisions do not “harm” others. Consent, in turn, becomes the primary marker of morality in interactions between individuals. For example, when two consenting adults engage in an extreme act like cannibalism—one consenting as the consumable and the other as the consumer—the act should, in theory, be morally permissible within the liberal framework of consent and individualism. However, such acts are and have been widely condemned and criminalized, even in liberal societies.^[Content Warning: The following reference discusses the Armin Meiwes case, which involves graphic descriptions of cannibalism. Reader discretion is advised. Wikipedia Contributors. Armin Meiwes See also: Theodore Dalrymple. The Case for Cannibalism 2004.] This highlights a key inconsistency: while liberalism prioritizes individual autonomy and consent, it struggles to define the broader ethical principles that justify restricting such acts. If consent is the sole marker of morality between individuals, why are certain consensual acts still deemed immoral?
This tension underscores the limitations of liberalism. While it emphasizes direct harm, it often fails to address indirect harms, a point later Western philosophers have grappled with. However, the argument of “indirect harm” within liberal thought—for example, against acts of self-harm or consensual cannibalism—is almost out of the question. The concept of “indirect harm” presents several challenges for liberal thought. How do we reconcile legal restrictions that infringe upon personal autonomy under the banner of “indirect harm”? How would “indirect harm” be defined? By applying the “indirect harm” argument, actions currently considered moral under liberal thought could also be argued as immoral.
For example, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) disproportionately affect homosexuals (MSM) in the United States. Despite representing only 2–3% of the population, this group accounts for over 70% of new diagnoses for specific infections and more than 80% of cases for others, according to CDC data. The risk of infection is estimated to be 25–35 times higher in this demographic compared to the rest of the population.^[CDC. Fast Facts: HIV and G⁕⁕ and Bis⁕⁕⁕al Men. 2024.] While the use of preventive measures is argued to mitigate this issue, it does not change the fact that these practices are absolutely and relatively more likely to cause and spread deadly diseases. Another example is assisted suicide, which is considered debatable within liberal thought, yet certain liberal governments have legalized it.^[BMJ. Assisted dying: law and practice around the world. 2015. See also: Re: Assisted dying: law and practice around the world (Assisted dying: Islamic View) 2015.] The harms of alcohol consumption significantly outweigh any potential benefits to individuals and society. Alcohol consumption contributes to over 2 million deaths annually and is linked to increased risks of domestic and gender-based violence. Despite this, alcohol remains legal and widely used in Western and secular liberal countries. Prohibiting ‘drinking and driving’ does not necessarily make drinking itself less harmful. On the contrary, from a liberal perspective, banning alcohol altogether would be seen as an infringement on individual autonomy.^[WHO. Global status report on alcohol and health 2018. ]^[European Journal of Public Health. Domestic violence in indian women: status of husbands’ alcohol consumption… 2022. See also: Shiva, L., Shukla, L. & Chandra, P.S. Alcohol Use and Gender-Based Violence. 2021.]
There are numerous examples that highlight inconsistencies and contradictions within liberal thought. While this framework may be preferable to alternatives within Western philosophy, it inadvertently fails to address fundamental moral dilemmas and the diversity of human experiences. One cannot argue that ideologies based on liberal thought offer nuanced moral guidance, as their philosophical foundations are, by design, limited and simplistic. Liberalism emerged as a solution to church-state entanglement—a problem unique to the West and its time. Its imposition on other societies was made possible only through Western hegemony; it was never intended to be a universal framework, a topic we will discuss in detail. We cannot expect objective answers from a system that is inherently subjective, individualistic, abstract in its concept of freedom, and ambiguous in its ethical constraints.
Islamic Thought
Islam in its broadest sense, began with Adam (AS), the first human, who was also a Muslim and a Prophet. Muslim literally means one who submits to the divine will—a term that predates Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (Peace be upon him). Throughout human history, Allah (The God) chose messengers from among the best of people for every tribe, nation and civilization.^[Qur’an: “We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were [deservedly] destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!” (An-Nahl 16:36).] The Qur’an refers to all these messengers and their adherents as Muslims, emphasizing that there has only ever been one true Religion from the Creator.^[Qur’an: 1. “So, when ‘Īsā (Jesus) sensed disbelief in them, he said: “Who are my helpers in the way of Allah?” The disciples said: “We are helpers of Allah. We believe in Allah; so be our witness that we are Muslims.” (Ali’ Imran 3:52) 2. “Ibrāhīm (Abraham) was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the polytheists.” (Ali’ Imran 3:67).]
Every messenger (Alaihim Asalatu Wassalam - peace be upon them all) preached Tauheed, the oneness of God and called people to worship Allah alone. While this core message remained constant, the Divine legislation (Shari’ah) evolved. Allah revealed different Shari’ahs to various Prophets, each tailored to the specific needs and contexts of their times and peoples. Many of the messengers were Prophets who received direct revelation from Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala (The Most Glorified, the Most High). Other messengers assisted in propagating the teachings of existing Prophets and their Shari’ahs. They were all guided by Allah and provided with signs and evidences for the people to contemplate.
The final Prophet in this great line of messengers is Muhammad ﷺ (Peace be upon him). He was sent with a Shari’ah relevant to our time, for the benefit of humanity until the end of time. Our current era will mark the end of Worldly life, As the Last Prophet ﷺ said, the period between his era and the [Last] Hour is like the distance between the middle and index fingers.^[…Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), holding out his middle and index fingers, said, “My advent and the Hour’s are like this (or like these),” namely, the period between his era and the Hour is like the distance between those two fingers, i.e., very short. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5301).]
“Philosophically”, Islam asserts that our existence is not self-realized; we cannot bring ourselves into existence, nor can we come from nothing. “Or were they created by nothing, or are they their own creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? In fact, they have no certainty.” (At-Tur 52:35-36) Rather, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala, the Maker (Al-Khaliq), the Originator (Al-Baari’), and the Sustainer (Al-Muqeet), in His infinite wisdom, created the universe with consistent, observable laws and finely-tuned parameters that enable life. Everything in our reality, from subatomic particles to cosmic structures, exhibits design and intent. “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.” (Ali ‘Imran 3:190)
If everything had a beginning, including the Creator, nothing could exist. If everything requires something else to bring it into existence, it would result in an infinite chain of causes or dependencies, which is a logical impossibility.^[Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage of Atheism, Chapter 5, 2020 (Online Edition).] Allah is transcendent, beyond the confines of space and time, and the limitations of the universe. He is not restricted by anything that limits His creation. “There is nothing like unto Him” (42:11). He is independent, self-sufficient, eternal, ever-living and everlasting. “Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.” (Al-Baqarah 2:255)
Islam basis its morality on one unique single source of truth. It recognizes Allah, the All-Knowing (Al-‘Aleem), as the origin of all knowledge and, therefore, the source of objective morality. It maintains that Humans, with our limited intellect, cannot base morality on our incomplete knowledge, as a deficient source can only produce a deficient result. Instead, through the wisdom He revealed to His Messengers, we are guided on what benefits our body and soul and what harms them. “Perhaps you dislike something which is good for you and like something which is bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not know.” (Al-Baqarah 2:216)
Islam affirms, Allah Most High has granted us the ability to make choices,^[In many ways, Islam reconciles the millennia-old philosophical and scientific debate between determinism and absolute free will: “Why does the divine decree seem to conflict with human free will? This apparent contradiction is based on our inability to conceive of an atemporal and alinear reality, let alone the essence of Allah Almighty’s actions and decrees from beyond the confines of time and space… The Qur’an and Sunnah follow a middle path between the two extremes. Allah is sovereign over the universe, knows all things before they happen, and decrees them into existence with limitless power. At the same time, Allah delegated will to human beings to test their deeds, culminating in the Day of Judgment.” (Yaqeen Institute. Predestination vs. Free Will in Islam: Understanding Allah’s Qadr. 2017.)] and this life is a test. We are not the sovereign owners of our bodies; they are an Amanah, a trust given to us. We are obligated to obey and recognize the boundaries set by Allah as our actions have consequences and we will be judged in the next life. In this life, this obedience also ensures the well-being of both the individual and the people around us, enabling everyone to benefit from our actions. “˹He is the One˺ Who created death and life in order to test which of you is best in deeds. And He is the Almighty, All-Forgiving.” (Al-Mulk 67:2)
Imam Al-Ghazali (Rahimahullah - may Allah have mercy on him),^[He is known as one of the most prominent and influential jurisconsults, legal theoreticians, muftis, philosophers, theologians, logicians and mystics in Islamic history. Wikipedia] wrote in his work Al-Mustasfa min ‘Ilm al-Usul about the Maqasid ash-Shari’ah (Purpose of Islamic Law), a discipline of Islamic knowledge. He outlined five components of Maqasid ash-Shari’ah: the intent of every obligation or prohibition in Islam is the preservation of morality (Hifz ud-Deen), preservation of life (Hifz un-Nafs), preservation of intellect (Hifz ul-Aql), preservation of progeny (Hifz un-Nasl), and preservation of property (Hifz ul-Maal).
Many influential Muslim scholars in the past have thoroughly explored Maqasid, and their views on Maqasid often overlap with those of Al-Ghazali (r.h). Shari’ah has been revealed to prevent harm, attain true justice and the well-being of humanity, and as Imam Al-Ghazali (r.h) says, it also aims to enable people to actualize the best possible outcomes and benefits in this world (and for the next).^[Mashhad Al-Allaf. Mirror of Realization, Lecture 11. 2020 Edition. See also: Maqasid. Excerpts from the book. ] “Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper.” (Al-A’raf 7:157)
Shari’ah, literally: A path to the source (of water), is the Divine legislation encompassing comprehensive guidance for all aspects of human life—whether legal or moral, public or private—addressing the rights (Huqooq) of the Creator and the rights (Huqooq) of the Creation. Islamic Shari’ah is defined by the Qur’an and Sunnah—the tradition of the Prophet ﷺ and his companions (RadhiAllahu’anhum—may Allah be pleased with them all). The Qur’an and Sunnah, Ijma’ (consensus of scholarly experts) and Qiyas (systematic analogical reasoning) form the foundations of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), with the Qur’an and Sunnah being the primary sources for Muslim scholars and jurists to derive rulings.
Islam clearly defines right and wrong. It is consistent, coherent, and specific, offering comprehensive guidance on everything from personal hygiene to state governance, as is evident through the Qur’an and Sunnah. Islam refuses to reduce the human experience to individualism; it offers solutions at every level, tending to the nuances and differences among people. It resonates with the human heart^[A comparative study by Laura Marie Edinger-Schons examined oneness beliefs and life satisfaction among nearly 75,000 participants across various religious groups. The study found that Muslims reported the highest levels of oneness beliefs, which correlated with greater life satisfaction, while atheists exhibited the lowest levels. APA. Oneness Beliefs and Their Effect on Life Satisfaction. 2019.] and convinces the mind.
Every human is born on Fitrah, the innate universal disposition to believe in and submit to the one true Creator. The Last Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “No infant is born but upon Fitrah. It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.” (Sahih Muslim 2658d).
Fitrah also refers to the disposition of morality; an innate belief within human beings about right and wrong. As in another Hadith, The Messenger of Allah ﷺ mentions this verse (Ayah) of the Qur’an: “So be steadfast in faith in all uprightness—the natural Way of Allah which He has instilled in ˹all˺ people. Let there be no change in this creation of Allah. That is the Straight Way, but most people do not know.” (italics mine) (30:30). Born Believers, an extensive research conducted by psychologist and anthropologist Justin L. Barrett, concluded that every human is innately predisposed to believe in God from birth, regardless of culture or race, because of the way our brains are wired. There are more researches done on the similar topic that have come to the same conclusion.^[Justin L. Barrett. Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief. 2012. Olivera Petrovich. Natural-Theological Understanding from Childhood to Adulthood 2018.]
Islam asserts its absolute and objective truth through the prophetic tradition, as well as the unmatched literary, linguistic, and mathematically precise composition of the Qur’an, its compelling rational arguments and evidences. The Qur’an is noted for its accurate recounting of historical events, including those that predate the Prophet ﷺ, and its veracious and specific insights into both the natural phenomena and the metaphysical. Qur’an and the Sunnah contain numerous detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled precisely as foretold, with no inconsistencies.^[Abu Zakariya. The Forbidden Prophecies 2019.] Qur’an is the only historic religious scripture that has been preserved in its original form and is completely intact.^[Bassam Saeh. The Miraculous Language of the Qur’an: Evidence of Divine Origin. 2015.]^[Muhammed Ali. The History Of The Quranic Text: A Breakdown From Revelation To Compilation. Video Essay, The Muslim Lantern, 2024. ]^[Abu Zakariya. The Eternal Challenge: A Journey Through The Miraculous Qur’an. (p. 31-114), 2017. See also: Abu Zakariya. Hieroglyphs Affirm the Historicity of the Qur’an. 2013.]
Despite ongoing ideological and media efforts to challenge and discredit Islam,^[ISPU. Equal Treatment? 2018.] it remains the most consistently practiced and fastest-growing religion globally. Islam is the only religion projected to grow at a rate faster than the global population increase. It is not only because of the fertility rate; Islam is also the religion with the highest conversion rate. With current demographic trends, by the year 2070, Islam will become the world’s largest religious group.^[The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050. Pew Research Center. April, 2015.]
Part Two: Solutions for women within Modern Western Ethics
Postmodern liberal thought claims that there is no universal truth and considers all “narratives,” including liberal thought itself, to be social constructs.^[A result of human interaction within a society.] Therefore, it is supposedly—and widely perceived to be—the most tolerant of diverse ideas and beliefs. However, in practice, this tolerance extends only to ideas that align with secular liberal narratives. Minorities and religious groups find acceptance only when they conform to liberal and secular interpretations of their traditions.^[Shabbir Akhtar. Be Careful with Muhammad! (ﷺ) 2021 (Second Edition). See also: Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy John Winter). Travelling Home: Essays on Islam in Europe. Chapter 1, 2020.] Advocacy and activism aimed at persuasively or forcibly applying secular liberal values—the modern Western religion—is also perceived as normal, whereas the advocacy of a religion or its framework of values is seen as antithetical to freedom.
This reveals yet another inherent paradox within present-day liberal thought as an applied philosophy: it struggles to tolerate fundamental challenges to its core principles, labels any alternative ethical paradigm as illegitimate, and advocates censorship based solely on its contrast with liberal fundamentals. It functions as a dogma for condemning “dogmas” as intolerant and restrictive.
Since we are discussing women’s rights, we will focus mainly on feminism, which exhibits similar selective tolerance. Feminism is offered as a solution to advance women’s rights under the liberal framework. While modern feminism positions itself as a movement for women’s rights, it operates as an ideology that requires its adherents to embrace specific philosophical assumptions, such as the notions of “common oppression” and “absolute equality.” It often dismisses alternative frameworks for women’s well-being, like those rooted in Islamic tradition, deeming them invalid simply because they do not align with core feminist beliefs.
The history of feminism is often divided into three waves. The first wave, the second and the third wave feminism. Fourth-wave feminism is an unpopular opinion, and scholars differ on the end of the third wave, as of now.
First Wave
First-wave feminism was the only cause-based wave that specifically sought to enfranchise women. It primarily focused on voting and property rights. Unlike later waves, the first wave did not address the issues that the second and third waves would take on. While it was a movement with a clear cause, it was also marked by racism. The founding mothers of the first-wave were well-known racists, specifically toward Black people. Rebecca Latimer Felton celebrated as the first female senator of the US, advocated the lynching of Black people.^[Rebecca Latimer Felton Georgia Encyclopedia May, 2003] Also because “black” men were given the right to vote in the US before women, it was popular to be racist as a feminist at the time in the Western hemisphere. The inception of feminism was based on entitlement and privilege. This was the movement exclusively for white women. The women other than white elsewhere were not considered benefactors of feminism.
One could argue, and rightly so, that feminism emerged as a response to systemic policies and Western cultures that isolated women as the “Other.” It was a direct reaction to decades of absurdly justified and cruel practices that marginalized women in the West. Christianity and Judaism, Greek and Roman philosophers, thinkers of the French Revolution, evolutionists, and atheists all shared some form of a common belief. Despite their differing perspectives, most concluded that women were categorically inferior in value or virtue. In many instances, women were considered subhuman, lesser animals, or deformed males, with no sovereignty over their own bodies.
If we examine recent Western history, we find concrete examples of the systemic isolation of women. Take the practice of wife selling in 19th-century England: when men found divorce difficult, they resorted to buying and selling their wives like commodities. Or consider 18th-century Britain, where a woman seeking a divorce had to endure the humiliation of publicly proving her husband’s sexual impotence in court. At the time, women had virtually no divorce rights. As recently as half a century ago, married women in democratic Western societies were denied basic ownership rights, and the idea of women voting was considered radical. The list is far from short.
Simone de Beauvoir, one of the founders of modern feminism and the author of the “Feminist Bible” The Second Sex, builds her case on gender relations, especially in the first part of her book, by drawing on similar arguments and quoting these Western thinkers and ideologues. Despite her tendency to generalize the moral instability of Western civilization to encompass every man, both living or historical, and to occasionally contradict her own ideas, she implicitly reveals that feminism is a response to problems within the Western philosophical tradition, even as she overtly universalizes her caricature of a man.
However, I must add that feminist claims of universal and historical male oppression—which deems the male gender as inherently unjust—often rely on isolated instances. As we’ll read ahead, many third-wave feminists also challenge this monolithic idea of common oppression. Feminism undoubtedly arose as an inevitable response to widespread, legally sanctioned violations of women’s dignity in the Western world. Yet, we must also recognize that feminism, especially the second-wave, was largely premised on the concept of absolute gender equality, which may not always accurately reflect the nuanced historical complexity of gender relations.^[Christina Hoff Sommers. Who Stole Feminism? 1995.]
Second Wave
The second wave of feminism began in the 1960s, during the peak of the civil rights movement in the United States. Issues such as equal rights, equal pay, and abortion were introduced into feminist discourse. Ironically, this period also marks the beginning of the denigration and disapproval of domesticity and motherhood. Patriarchy was cast as the malevolent antagonist, a social hierarchy in which men were seen as inherently oppressive and unjust. The founders of the second wave romanticized corporate careers for women and depicted motherhood, marriage, and family life as inferior and pitiable. They argued that women’s liberation depended on abolishing the social structures of family and motherhood. They advocated for the separation of mothers from their children through institutionalized childcare systems and promoted the use of reproductive technologies (such as artificial reproduction) to ‘free’ women from their biology of pregnancy and childbirth. They claimed that women’s natural qualities impeded their progress and weakened them compared to men, accounting for their continued oppression. Extending this logic, women were encouraged to oppose their nature and seek external validation through pursuits highly regarded by Western society, such as corporate careers.^[Shulamith Firestone. The Dialectic of Sex. 1970. Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex. 1949.]
However, these founding figures of the second wave later on in their lives retracted and changed positions on a lot of their past remarks and ideas, which is the most suppressed part of the feminist history. Betty Friedan, celebrated as the catalyst for the second wave,^[Betty Friedan (1921-2006) was an American feminist writer and activist. Her book, “The Feminine Mystique,” is credited with sparking the second wave of feminism Wikipedia.] who once compared a household to a “comfortable [Nazi] concentration camp” for a stay-at-home woman, experienced a significant shift in the 1970s. After conducting surveys following the implementation of laws and the civil rights movement, in her book “The Second Stage,” Friedan stated that “women have a profound human impulse to have children” and acknowledged that “women were experiencing more signs of psychological stress than women in their twenties and thirties had in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, and were more likely to feel on the edge of a nervous breakdown than young men”. She admitted to the failures of the second wave and realized that it not only made the lives of young women more challenging but also worsened their quality of life compared to men of the same age.
Germaine Greer,^[Germaine Greer (born 1939) is an Australian writer and public intellectual, known as a major voice of second-wave feminism in the latter half of the 20th century Wikipedia. See also: Greer’s Life on Edge BBC News, April 2000.] one of the most prominent and influential second-wave feminists, in her works such as Sex and Destiny or The Whole Woman, abandoned almost all of her previously resolute ideas. She, who once described pregnancy as “the end of all good times,” expressed her remorse in the British magazine Aura, that she mourns for her unborn babies. “I still have pregnancy dreams… waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen.”
The second wave of feminism places women rather in a disadvantageous position by arguing for absolute equality. Women are expected to do more than they are physically capable of. On the other hand, feminism has made it considerably more convenient for corrupt men to exploit women. A man no longer has to commit; it is not required for him to relinquish his resources to provide, as feminism does not align with traditional notions of marriage and procreation. The adoption of birth control products, unconstrained and unconditional access to abortion has relieved men of responsibilities and enabled ‘no-strings-attached’ relationships, allowing men to use^[One critique might be that women could exploited men in this dynamic. However, both first and second-wave feminism acknowledge power hierarchy with males preceding females, making this scenario unlikely. Research also indicates that women are biologically 2-5 times more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and infections (STIs) than men.] women purely for hedonistic gain. Several sociological studies suggest that the feminist movement has disproportionately favored men and adversely affected the welfare of women. Blanchflower and Oswald (2000), a longitudinal study^[David G. Blanchflower & Andrew J. Oswald. Well-Being Over Time in Britain and the USA. 2000.] spanning two decades (from the 1970s to the 1990s) with 100,000 participants in the United States and the UK concluded that, despite significant legislative reforms and societal changes following the success of the feminist movement, women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. Numerous studies and research papers highlight the accelerated progress in the implementation of feminist standards during this period, yet also point to a consistent decline in the well-being and happiness of women compared to previous decades.
It is not challenging to understand the reasons behind this downward trend. Not only does the second wave acknowledge, but numerous reputable studies have also conclusively demonstrated that there are significant physiological, psychological, and biological differences between men and women.^[Biological differences between females and males need to be considered in scientific studies. Endocrine Society, 2021. Sex Differences in Research and Medicine. Endocrine Reviews, 2021. How men’s and women’s brains are different. Stanford Medicine, 2017. Men and women are physiologically unequal: An equal research emphasis. Yale Scientific, 2020.] Despite this consideration, it brute-forces the equal treatment and identicality of roles. Women face undue pressure from the feminist culture to contest in highly competitive environments, often with men, in academia, corporate, sports, social, and domestic affairs. Conversely, adult women predominantly lean towards desiring a stable family and children, creating unprecedented tension and expectations for them to fulfill their “human impulse” and pursue their commercial potential.
Third Wave
The third wave of feminism disagrees with the first and second waves on the binary distinction of men and women. It suggests that a multitude of intersecting and interlocking “identity markers” define a subject (an individual) and its privileged or persecuted position. This idea of “intersectionality” also single-handedly dismantles the notion of patriarchy, the “common oppression”, and in some cases feminism itself. Bell Hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins), a well-known intersectional feminist writes, “The idea of common oppression was a false and corrupt platform disguising and mystifying the true nature of women’s varied and complex social reality” (emphasis mine). Patriarchy fails to explain gender oppression in every context. “The notion of patriarchy has wickedly been criticized in recent years for its failure to account for the workings of gender oppression in the concrete cultural contexts in which it exists”, says Judith Butler, an acclaimed modern-day third-wave feminist.
If the concept of “common oppression” is indeed “false and corrupt,” and the social reality of women is, in fact, varied and complex, how can a unified front (i.e. feminism) accommodate the multifaceted social reality of diverse women? The third wave subscribes to this contradiction. Bell Hooks writes, “There can be no mass-based feminist movement to end sexist oppression without a unified front.” But what should bring us together when our causes and oppressions are vastly different? Historically, the oppression faced by white women does not equate to that faced by black women. A South-Asian woman cannot coincide with a white colonial woman. A Palestinian woman shares no common ground with an Apartheid-state Israeli woman. A single unified front of feminism defeats the purpose of recognizing intersectionality. Until there is a unified front of feminism, it will always serve the immediate beneficiaries, and intersectionality will remain confined and subordinate to the “first-world” flag-bearers of the feminist front—individuals positioned at the summit of the power hierarchy.
Third-wave feminism contradicts itself to such an extent that it undergoes a self-implosion. In the third wave, gender, sexual orientation, and even biological sex are considered fluid and interchangeable, while race, paradoxically, is often perceived as static and unchangeable. Gender and biological sex, according to the third-wave narrative, are social constructs, mere fictions with no inherent meaning. They are seen as “performances” enacted by a “subject” (an individual). For Butler, sex “is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static condition of a body…” and “Gender reality is performative which means, quite simply, that it is real only to the extent that it is performed”. If gender and biological sex are both considered social constructs or fictions, it can be inferred that race is also a social construction. If race is, therefore, socially contrived, racism ceases to exist. This extends to the notion of manhood and masculinity, womanhood and femininity. This blatant contradiction, when presented, often catches third-wave feminists off guard because they tend to view sex, gender, and sexual orientation in isolation, and give precedence to Western non-normative gender identities.^[Mohammad Hijab. Fifth Wave Feminism 2008. ] They are also inclined to dismiss intersectionality when it comes to Islamic emphasis on chastity (Paakdamani), modesty (Sharm-o-haya), the recognition of two sexes or genders, and clear distinction of roles between man and woman. It becomes easy for what Sherene Razack in Casting Out (2008) calls “Western Feminists” to condemn Islam precisely for maintaining gender distinctions and values that differ from liberal ideals, and identify it as a threat to universalization of modern Western religion. This feminist discourse thus enables and provides “ideological justification” for imperialist interventions to rescue supposedly endangered Muslim women from their uncivilized male counterparts, or more explicitly, to destroy the barbaric Muslim men. More on this later.
The third-wave feminism self-implodes not solely because it declines to serve the interests of women; it is also because it deconstructs women to such an extent that the idea of womanhood becomes extinct. The shared reality of women—those who have lived and those who are currently living—along with their unique hardships, achievements, endurance, and contributions to human survival is erased.
Reaction to feminism
The evolution of feminism has not occurred in isolation. As feminist ideas gained traction, they sparked a range of opposing responses, critical academic literature, and, in recent years, antifeminist reactionary movements such as Red Pill, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM). While diverse in their specific beliefs, these ideologies share a common thread of opposition to feminist principles, claiming that men have been victims of systemic gynocentrism—a bias towards women and against men in society. These movements argue that feminism, including its approach to studying male psychology, has deemed male character and masculinity as inherently defective and in need of correction, ironically mirroring how early misogynists viewed female character and femininity.^[Springer Int. Pub.The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health. 2019.]
These movements predominantly assert that men, too, should reject their natural inclinations or traditional expectations, such as the need to protect and provide for family and women or enter into long-term commitments like marriage. Just as hate for men was popularized among women by feminist ideas of patriarchy or common-oppression, “moderate” anti-feminists argue that disdain towards the pervasive misandrist sub-culture of feminism is equally justified. Arguments made in works like The Manipulated Man (1971) by Esther Vilar reinforce the idea for these ideologies that women have historically manipulated men into assuming burdensome roles while benefiting from men’s labor and resources. The Myth of Male Power (1993) by Warren Farrell, a former member of the National Organization for Women (NOW), argues that men have traditionally been seen as disposable. Men are expected to take on dangerous, high-risk jobs to protect and provide for women and children. Farrell argues, men’s power is largely illusory and that society undervalues men’s contributions. Men have shorter life expectancies and significantly higher suicide rates compared to women.^[Men, mental health, and suicide. Frontiers Editorial, 2023. See also: Cara Richardson. Towards an enhanced understanding of suicide risk in men. 2021.]
Feminism and antifeminism or masculism, despite their opposing views, share critical similarities: both reject traditional gender roles, in favor of hyper-individualism, and claim selective treatment and systemic oppression. This schism between men and women leads to detrimental consequences. Particularly in the West, it has for both genders, in terms of loneliness, social isolation, severe mental heath conditions, significantly increased the risk of mortality.^[Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review PLoS Med, 2010.] Several studies have shown a steady decline in birth rates across developed nations, strongly attributed to the increasing focus on excessive self-reliance and career-driven lives, especially among women, over family-oriented lives. 45% of women in the U.S. between the ages of 25 and 44 are projected to be single and childless, the highest proportion ever recorded, and is expected to grow by about 1.2% annually. And mind you, in a capitalist, consumerist society, single women are profitable. Birth rates in many Western countries have fallen below replacement levels, meaning that without immigration, their populations will shrink. Fewer people are opting for marriage in the West, which correlates with reduced family formation and lower birth rates.^[Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S. Pew Research Center. 2019.]^[Revision of World Population Prospects. UN Population Division. 2019.]^[Rise of the SHEconomy Morgan Stanley, 2019.]
Both feminism and masculism falter due to their insufficient epistemic basis—a consistent source of truth. They fail to consider the broader societal ramifications, and tend to only entertain egocentric perspective, and neglect, for instance, communal responsibility. Thereby, undermining the institutions of marriage and family, which are essential for maintaining a stable society and ensuring the continuation of the human race. In their pursuit of justice, both ideologies remain constrained by the same limitations of liberal thought that we examined earlier—a framework that proves inadequate when confronted with the diverse nature of human experiences. These ideas are eventually mere human thought experiments, attempting to derive morality from a source that cannot even define the purpose of life.
Western Hegemony and the Moral Inconsistency
Perhaps the first instance Europe started to become self-aware was in opposition to Islam. The first recorded use of “Europenses” (754 CE) coincided with defense against Saracen (Muslim) advances. Before this, there was no absolute distinction between the “West” and Islam, as Islamic civilization maintained significant intellectual and geographical influence over the West and had legitimate claims to the Hellenic (Greek) tradition, which the West claims its inception in. After the Enlightenment period (1685 – 1815), as the West started to redefine itself through secularism and liberalism, it now positions Islam as representing the “problems” of religion itself. This European anti-Islamism emerged in the 7th century, materialized into the Crusades 900 years ago, and continued evolving into a broader pattern of othering those perceived as different with subsequent colonial expansion.^[Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy John Winter). Travelling Home: Essays on Islam in Europe. Chapter 1, 2020.]
The West’s ability today to impose its ethical standards globally stems from this colonial heritage—built through mass extermination of natives, subjugation, destruction of nations, and systematic resource exploitation. While the Western colonial empire officially collapsed after the European War “World War II” and proclaimed its moral evolution through documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its imperial ambitions were merely philosophically reframed.
It continued to engage in modern-day colonial projects and invasions under the age-old pretext of “civilizing” the “third world” to protect “freedom” and the “free world.” Often, under the guise of fighting “war on terror,” it continues to deplete invaded territories of resources, subjugate civilians through mass bombings, targeting of civilian structures, torture, rape, and genocide. It has been able to systematically demolish native literatures and educational structures, replacing them with propaganda and indoctrination, framed as benevolent efforts to educate the “uncivilized.” Its strategies to safeguard “national interests” include remotely manipulating foreign governments, imposing illegal sanctions, supporting contemporary colonization, conducting illegal military occupations, and colluding with allies in committing war crimes—all while upholding double standards in matters of international and humanitarian law, weaponizing these structures to serve its strategic and ideological interests.
The colonial mentality^[WIkipedia Contributors. Colonial Mentality.] persists even where nations have regained sovereignty. The pervasive influence of the West continues in third-world governments, governing policies, economies, moral values, and ethical norms. The fact that almost all former colonies have evolved into secular liberal democracies is not mere coincidence. The most atrocious ongoing conflicts, such as the Kashmir conflict in the South Asian subcontinent and the Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, are direct consequences of British colonial rule. The West continues to marginalize the third world on sociopolitical grounds, perpetuating a narrative that characterizes the third world as incompetent, supposedly at the mercy of their enlightened intellectual guidance. Through postcolonial financial structures such as the IMF and World Bank, they dominate the economic front and bully sovereign nations into introducing amendments, imposing unequal policies, and thus continuing to enforce the liberal world order.^[Jamie Martin. The Meddlers. 2022. See also: The Rotten Roots of the IMF and the World Bank. The Nation, 2022.]
Even mainstream activism against racism and other forms of discrimination in the West is ironically discriminatory toward certain groups. It often aims to showcase the “progressive” thought of Western liberal nations in contrast to the perceived backwardness of the third world. The recent Russia-Ukraine war lifted some curtains off the unsurprisingly popular racist and supremacist complex dormant among civilians and officials. Like Charlie D’Agata of CBS News was heard saying, “But this isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European—I have to choose those words carefully, too—city, where you wouldn’t expect or hope that it’s going to happen.” What you are reading is not just carefully chosen words, it is a shared mentality across most of the western political spectrum.
European Union Chief Ursula von der Leyen’s official statement on Ukraine was, “Yesterday we saw again, Russia’s targeted attacks against civilian infrastructure… Targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure with a clear aim of cutting off men, women, and children from water, electricity, and heating with winter coming… These are acts of pure terror, and we have to call it as such.” Yet for similar, albeit much worse, war crimes committed on Palestinian civilians, her comment was, “In the face of this horror, Israel has the right to defend itself in line with international and humanitarian law, and right now Palestinians in Gaza are in need of humanitarian help and aid.” The explicit duplicity in these statements, the evasion of calling out the “pure terror” that Palestinians face, cannot be disregarded as a mere play of semantics. These carefully crafted words echo the hypocrisy and the supremacist sentiments that are prevalent in the West, and I argue, are not in the minority.
When we consider the relationship between Western liberal, secular countries and sovereign, indigenous European Muslim-majority nations, we encounter hypocrisy once again. The Bosnian genocide of Muslims by Christian militias between 1992 and 1995, just 29 years ago, was a clear case of Islamophobia. Yet, as Dr. Abdal Hakim Murad (Tim Winter) describes, there is a “comforting amnesia” surrounding this horrible atrocity. The West and its leading countries effectively swept this far greater tragedy under the rug—and, in the same breath, exploited and weaponized the events of 9/11 to justify the unjust invasions of Muslim nations.
Bosnian genocide was overseen by Christian church leaders, and Muslims were branded as “race traitors,” deeming their extermination a “sacred act”. Muslims were routinely imprisoned in concentration and detention camps, forced to sing “Chetnik songs”, and compelled to make Christian crosses before being subjected to torture and mutilation. More than half of the mosques, historic monuments, and libraries—encompassing a six-century-old religious and cultural heritage—were destroyed. Over 10,000 Muslims were killed, many were driven from their homes, raped, tortured to death, including children, babies and women, and buried in mass graves.
The broader European Christian leadership was complicit, while Western liberal nations, and almost all of their intellectuals, politicians, and general populace, spectated in silence, allowing this genocide to unfold with impunity. This atrocity was a second “Holocaust” in Europe, a genocide of Muslims under the blessing of the Church, following the Holocaust of the Jews. Yet the West, fully aware of the events, distorted the reality of this genocide, mischaracterizing it as an ethnic conflict driven by “ancient hatreds”, despite the fact that the perpetrators and victims shared the same race and language. If the roles had been reversed, and the perpetrators were Muslims, the West would have undoubtedly condemned it as a heinous act of mass violence perpetrated by terror-endorsing Muslims against “secular, integrated, democratic Christians.”^[Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy John Winter). Travelling Home: Essays on Islam in Europe. Chapter 4, 2020.]
The above is only an example, and one within European borders. If the West has ever been consistent, it has been in its strategy, never in its morality.^[George Monbiot. The moral myth. 2003.] To claim that dominant Western ideologies are the moral benchmark for ending injustices in the modern world is absurd. While there are exceptions within the western hemisphere, exceptions do not make the rule, and oversimplifying this into an absolute dichotomy of good and bad is clearly not the argument here. Quite literally, this modern Western religion lacks clear definitions of good and bad, and the morality is based on whims. We cannot expect such a system to be consistent, but we can point out their false virtue and the act of superiority. The point stands against the ideological indoctrination peddled by the political West as ideal and enlightening. We are highlighting the glaring lack of moral integrity within a system propounded as the moral solution.
Beyond the West’s hypocritical foreign policy lies an even more alarming reality: the fallout of moral consensus within Western societies and those influenced by its unpredictable moral standards. Numerous studies demonstrate the deteriorating moral and spiritual state of developed European and Western countries. Crime rates, including crimes against women, domestic violence, and homicides, are not only high but are exponentially increasing. Hate crimes, fueled by Western mainstream Islamophobic rhetoric, are soaring to new heights both in the West and around the world.^[Surging anti-Muslim sentiments, discrimination take center stage in 2023 AA. See also: 2024 Civil Rights Report: Fatal: The Resurgence of Anti-Muslim Hate CAIR.] Depression, gender-identity crises, and suicide rates in these regions are not decreasing. Children in the West are struggling to identify with their biological sex, or even as humans. Adolescents are being subjected to permanent body-altering surgeries and destructive life-altering medications.^[ Violence against Women: every day and everywhere. (surveyed in EU Member States). FRA, 2014. ]^[World Population Review. Suicide Rate by Country 2024. See also: Bertolote JM, Fleischmann A. Suicide and psychiatric diagnosis: a worldwide perspective. 2002.]^[Levine, S.B., Abbruzzese, E. Current Concerns About Gender-Affirming Therapy in Adolescents. 2023. See also: Jennifer Block. Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement. BMJ, 2023.]
The mere fact that the Western empire has hegemony in the current substrata of history does not make their beliefs true. We must question and scrutinize these ideas for their inconsistencies and hypocrisies. It is essential to dismantle the notion of Western supremacy in our communities and households. We should realize our potential in solving our social problems and addressing our issues within our own intellectual traditions. As Muslims, we need to understand Islam as a complete worldview and how the Islamic framework addresses the most prevalent issues of our times.
Part Three: Solutions within Islam and the Misinterpretations
The doubts about Islam are mostly caused by emotional, not rational reasons. Family issues and past traumas cloud our judgment. It is important to pay attention to and regard our traumas and those of people around us. However, giving false meaning to our traumatic experiences is not only a setback to self-awareness and improvement, but it also prevents us from exploring the truth and seeking true knowledge. Doubts can feed off of our lack of knowledge and the misconstrued ill-information spread through typically Western Islamophobic propaganda machines. Last and most importantly, these doubts reflect a lack of belief in the divine origin of the Quran and the Prophethood. Feminism and similar ideologies may ultimately lead one to disbelief in Allah, the Last Prophet ﷺ and His sunnah, because accepting postmodern ideas holistically often involves embracing its indispensable characteristics, such as agnosticism and atheism.
For a Muslim (the one who submitted), the Qur’an and Sunnah are the primary sources of guidance and no other source of information supersedes them. It is not reasonable to try and validate what Islam mandates through statistics or social norms, as doing so undermines the essence of accepting Islam as the Truth. Instead, if we are serious about living in alignment with the Truth, we should use our logical faculties and revisit the basics: reflect on the purpose and origin of life, study the signs of the Creator, examine these primary sources and study the evidences that Islam provides, and learn about the Prophet’s ﷺ life. Once it is established that Islam is the Truth from the Creator, it becomes irrelevant and irrational to question the knowledge of the Authority one has submitted to.
To address the misconceptions or discuss the Islamic solutions, it is crucial to view Islamic legal rulings not in isolation but within their broader context and application. In the following sections, I will demonstrate this by briefly presenting a few of the rulings and wisdoms found in Islamic law concerning women, family, and society.
From Jahiliyyah to Islam
Over one thousand and four hundred years ago, in the historic period of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance), Islam embarked with groundbreaking, radical (at the time) reforms that dismantled all types of inequalities and injustices present in the Arabian Peninsula and later on throughout the Middle East and beyond. Islam brought order and justice to such a lawless and chaotic world, where the exploitation of the weak was honored and the women had no dignity. Umar ibn Khattab (r.a) says, “By Allah, in the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance we did not pay attention to women until Allah revealed regarding them what He revealed regarding them and assigned for them what He has assigned.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4913). Even disputes as minor as a camel drinking from someone else’s water had the potential to trigger vendettas and tribal conflicts that spanned generations. The burial of live infant daughters was distressingly common. Slavery^[Unlike the hierarchical Western transatlantic slave trade, pre-Islamic Arabian slavery was primarily economic and not inherently race-based, though racism still existed. Slavery was widespread across civilizations, driven by political and economic structures. Islam was the only system that introduced unprecedented legal protections and mechanisms for manumission, significantly humanizing a pre-existing social institution, which eventually led to slavery becoming obsolete.. The Islamic legal framework uniquely restricted captivity to (combatant) prisoners of war (Milk al-yamin) and granted them comprehensive rights, including access to the judicial system. For example, the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: 1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but proves treacherous; 2. One who sells a free person and eats the price; 3. One who employs a laborer and gets the full work done but does not pay him his wages.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2227). He also said, “(Captives are) your brothers whom Allah has put under your control, so feed them with the same food that you eat, clothe them with the same clothes you wear, and do not burden them with so much that they are overwhelmed; if you do burden them, help them.” (Sunan Ibn Majah 3690).] was an indispensable organ of the economy, and the wealthy became richer by imposing interest on lending their money, resulting in significant economic inequality.
Islam marked the end of the Jahiliyyah and gave rise to the best of times and the best of people. Islam came to power In the times of the Prophet ﷺ, after decades-long brutal aggression and persecution of Muslims. The Prophet ﷺ returned to his birthplace Makkah, eight years after the Hijrah,^[Migration that took place from Makkah to Madina to escape persecution from the pagan Arabs.] along with an army of 10,000 companions. Our beloved ﷺ announced general amnesty to the enemies, saying to the Quraish,^[Powerful and former ruling tribe of Makkah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was also from the Quraish.] “O you people of Quraish! What do you think of the treatment that I am about to accord to you?” Experts of Hadith (Muhadditheen) suggest that this question was rhetorical, prompting them to consider what they would have done in this position. They replied: “O noble brother and son of noble brother! We expect nothing but goodness from you.” Upon this, He ﷺ said: “I speak to you in the same words as Yusuf (the Prophet Joseph) spoke unto his brothers: He said: ‘No reproach on you this day,’ (12:92) go your way, for you are freed ones.” People like Ikrimah bin Abu Jahl, who attacked Khalid’s (r.a) group during the entry into Makkah, were forgiven. Wahshi, the killer of the Prophet’s uncle Hamzah (r.a), and Hind, who mutilated Hamzah’s (r.a) body, were pardoned. Habar, who fatally injured the Prophet’s daughter Zainab (r.a),was granted mercy.^[Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri. Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum. 1996.]
The Prophet’s ﷺ legacy was continued through the great four Caliphs (Khulafa): Abu Bakr Siddiq, Umar ibn Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi-Talib, May Allah be pleased with them all. How these Khulafa ruled with utmost humility, justice, and fear of Allah is openly available history attested and corroborated by Muslim and non-Muslim historians alike. The times of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Al-Khulafa-ur Rashidun) lead us to the onset of what European historians often refer to as the “Islamic Golden Age” in the mid-7th century, during the European Dark Ages, leading to revolutionary contributions in mathematics, science, engineering, technology, art, judiciary, and literature. These contributions had a profound influence on what followed in Europe after the Dark Ages, specifically the Renaissance, that shaped the course of Western Civilization.
Women in Islam
One of the most significant and earliest reforms Islam mandated was the restoration of women’s dignity, the establishment of women’s rights, and the endorsement of general equality between men and women, races, and tribes. Allah says in the Qur’an, “O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify each other. Surely the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Al-Hujurat 49:13). The Beloved Prophet ﷺ in his last sermon (Khutbah) said, “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action…” (Al-Bukhari: 1623, 1626, 6361) In another Hadith Rasulullah ﷺ says: ” إِنَّمَا النِّسَاءُ شَقَائِقُ الرِّجَالِ” (Indeed, women are equal to men). In Islam, a woman has complete individual autonomy. She has full sovereignty over owning and managing property or wealth. She can establish contracts or leave a legacy in her name. Her right to inheritance extends to her roles as a mother, wife, sister, daughter and more. She holds the unimpeded right to choose her husband and has the right to seek a divorce, receive an allowance, alimony, or child support. For more than 1400 years, these are some of the rights Islam has granted women that have remained consistent and unchanged.
All legal rulings in Islam apply to both men and women, except for the specific exceptions made in the Qur’an and Sunnah. These exceptions are decreed by Allah, who knows His creation best. We can also find wisdom in these rulings, which we can discern and understand as being based on the physiological and psychological differences between men and women, in order to establish equity and justice. Allah ﷻ says: “And do not crave what Allah has given some of you over others. Men will be rewarded according to their deeds and women ˹equally˺ according to theirs. Rather, ask Allah for His bounties. Surely Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things.” (An-Nisa “The Women” 4:32).
Both men and women have obligations (Ahkamaat). There is no comparison between the two genders because Allah has created us differently. Yet, there is no difference in value or virtue between men and women, as Allah SWT states: “Women have rights similar to those of men equitably, although men have a degree ˹of responsibility˺ above them. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” (2:228). In another Ayah: “So their Lord responded to them: “I will never deny any of you—male or female—the reward of your deeds. Both are equal in reward…” (3:195).
Wife
The marriage (Nikah) in Islam is a Sunnah and Ibadah (an act of worship). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ says, “When a man marries, he has fulfilled half of the religion; so let him fear God regarding the remaining half.” (Mishkat al-Masabih 3096). Nikah is based on mutual consent and contract between the wife and husband. Both men and women have a right to choose their partner on their own accord. The Mahr (bridal gift) is mandatory for a man to give as part of the marriage contract. The husband has no right over the Mahr or anything that his wife has ownership of. “Give women ˹you wed˺ their due dowries graciously. But if they waive some of it willingly, then you may enjoy it freely with a clear conscience.” (An-Nisa 4:4).
The Prophet ﷺ says in the same Khutbah mentioned above: “O people, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.”
Islam gives the husband the right and responsibility to maintain his family, a husband that a woman has the absolute liberty to choose. The responsibility of a husband is to provide for his family, children, and the wife, and protect them with his life. A husband is also obligated to provide allowance (Nafaqah) to his wife as per his capacity. Nafaqah includes food, clothing, shelter, health care, and all expenses that sustain her well-being. Allah ﷻ states in the Qur’an: “Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.” (An-Nisa 4:34). For context, this Ayah appears in the Qur’an after earlier verses prohibit discrimination against women by withholding or neglecting their rights. Then, Ayah 4:34 transitions to describing the specific rights and responsibilities assigned to men.
In Ma’ariful Qur’an, Mufti Muhammad Shafi (r.h) writes in his exegesis (Tafseer) of this Ayah that the phrase “men are qawwamun (caretakers) of women” refers to men having a functional authority and responsibility to manage the family system. He argues that just as any organized system or group requires a head or authority to arbitrate differences and make decisions—a concept universally accepted in governance—a family, as a micro-sample of larger organizations, also needs someone to maintain and run the system. Allah, in His wisdom, elected men for this responsibility due to their certain innate qualities.
This authority, Mufti Shafi (r.h) explains, stems from two reasons. The first relates to “the wisdom of creation which is beyond the control of any human being.” Allah has “made some excel the others (in some qualities) under His exclusive wisdom and consideration” (بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّـهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ). Mufti Shafi (r.h) notes the Qur’anic eloquence in using the phrase “made some of them excel the others” rather than directly stating “because He made men excel women”, emphasizing the complementary nature of the relationship between men and women. The second reason “refers to a factor which comes through one’s efforts and endeavor,” pointing to the fact that “men spend their money, pay dower and take the responsibility of meeting all needs of women” (وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ). Mufti Shafi (r.h) emphasizes that these reasons “prove that the right to authority does not get to be established simply by force. Rather, this right can be deserved on the basis of one’s competence and capability.”
It is important to understand that this is not at odds with the status or rights of women in Islam. As Mufti Shafi (r.h) notes: “the rights of women are as incumbent upon men as the rights of men are upon women, and the rights of both are similar to each other, with only one exception that men have a certain precedence in functional authority…” Mufti Shafi (r.h) points to Qur’anic injunctions such as “وَعَاشِرُوهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ” (treat women well, as recognized) and “عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنْهُمَا وَتَشَاوُرٍ” (by mutual consent and consultation), which instruct men to treat their wives well with kindness and to make decisions in family matters through mutual consultation.
This dynamic, as per the Maqasid, aims to foster compatibility between spouses, development of children, and societal well-being. In spite of men’s primary responsibilities, the Prophet’s ﷺ life (Seerah) and his Sunnah encourage men to help with domestic duties. Al-Aswad (r.a) said, “I asked ‘A’isha, may Allah be pleased with her, ‘What did the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, do when he was with his family?’ She replied, ‘He would do chores for his family, and when it was time for the prayer, he would go out.’” (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 538) In another Hadith, ‘A’isha (r.a) narrates, the Prophet ﷺ said, “The best of you is the best to his wives, and I am the best of you to my wives…” (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 3895)
“And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.” As per the Qur’an, a woman’s obedience to her husband is the right of the man, as long as he does not violate her rights. A woman (or anyone in other cases) is not allowed to obey her husband in disobedience to the Creator, as the Prophet ﷺ said, “There is no obedience to anyone if it is disobedience to Allah. Verily, obedience is only in good conduct.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 7257). She has no obligation to adhere to that which is unlawful, nor is she permitted to follow anything that can potentially harm her. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Do not cause harm or return harm. Whoever harms others, Allah will harm him. Whoever is harsh with others, Allah will be harsh with him.” (Al-Sunan Al-Kubra Lil-Bayhaqi 11384)
The term “obedience” does not imply unquestionable and irrational servitude, as it might be interpreted in the Western context, which has negative connotations associated with this word. Rather, as mentioned, it entails a respectful and consensual relationship where a woman chooses to entrust “functional authority” to her husband, who is “bound by the supreme law of Islam, the Shari’ah.”
A man can marry more than one woman, up to four, only if he meets the financial, physical, and emotional conditions extensively set by the Shari’ah. The notion of multiple wives in Islam intends to impose a limit on how many women a man can marry, not to encourage polygamy. Historically, in pre-Islamic Arabia and many other cultures, a man, on average, had 10-20 wives, and there was no limit to how many one could marry. Even today, particularly in the Western world, polygamous relationships exist but are not formally termed “marriage.” The mortality rate of men, which is still higher than women’s, was even higher in those times, resulting in a significantly larger number of women (and children). Islam makes it possible for women, including divorcees and widows, to have options to marry or remarry. Allah says in the Qur’an, “If you fear you might fail to give orphan women their ˹due˺ rights ˹if you were to marry them˺, then marry other women of your choice—two, three, or four. But if you are afraid you will fail to maintain justice, then ˹content yourselves with˺ one…” (An-Nisa 4:3).
As Maqasid Al-Shariah expounds, Islam fundamentally aims to protect women from situations where they could be exploited, just as the Shariah does for the men. For instance, it establishes a system where women have rightful access to wealth without the use of employment. Besides men’s financial responsibility of women, they are also entitled to capital through, such as, inheritance or allowance (Nafaqah) etc., which they sovereignly own and are under no obligation to spend on anything. Additionally, the divine obligation for women to cover their bodies protects them from objectification by morally corrupt (fasiq) or commercially motivated individuals. Islam forbids every woman for a man and vice versa until there is consent and a Nikah contract between them. It also strictly prohibits a man from being alone with a ghair-mahram woman in an enclosed space—principles we will explore further. Therefore, Islam is also the only major world religion that granted women the right to divorce.
In Islam, both husbands and wives have conclusive legal options to end their relationships. A wife typically seeks a divorce through a process known as khula’, where she may offer the husband some monetary value which is not required to equal the Mahr. If the husband is at fault, the wife retains the Mahr, and it is unlawful (Makruh Tahrimi) for him to demand money. If the husband or wife has wronged their significant other in a manner that is punishable offense, both are subject to punishment according to Islamic law. If the husband is not to blame, he may ask the wife to compensate him, which again, is not required to equal the Mahr but cannot exceed the Mahr either. However, this is handled on a case-by-case basis. The verdict can vary significantly depending on the circumstances, so the above-mentioned distribution of Mahr is not fixed or absolute. Both may also involve an arbitrator, but that is not required.
The Nikah could also be nullified (Faskh) by the court of Islam or by an Islamic Judge (Qadhi or Mufti), once the case is established as fair (legitimately problematic, which includes but is not limited to harm). After this, the husband cannot reinstate the marriage unless both agree to remarry. Divorce and marriage in Islam are approached with great caution, as these are regarded as among the most delicate social issues. Beyond the couple, divorce involves children and families, and its implications affect society as a whole. There are also much more detailed and nuanced rulings (Masa’il) on this topic; an exegesis of Ayah 2:229 provides a quick overview.^[Mufti Muhammad Shafi (r.h). Ma’ariful Qur’an. Tafseer (Exegesis) from Ayah 2:229]
For men, divorce (Talaq) in Islam is exceptionally challenging. It is formally restricted and also financially disadvantageous. In most cases, the woman retains all of the Mahr and remains entitled to maintenance during the Iddah period (typically three months) or until the end of her pregnancy, if applicable. The man is also responsible for the financial support of any children they may have or had. While both parents have equal custody rights, the mother usually has priority until or unless she remarries. According to Hanafi fiqh, custody of the child is obligated to remain with the mother until the age of seven, after which the child may live with the father. Studies suggest that the financial and emotional investment in the family often leads men to avoid divorce as an option, while women initiate 70–90% of divorces, which can also leave them in disadvantageous positions.^[Why Women Initiate Divorce More Often Than Men divorce.com, 2024. Gender Differences in the Consequences of Divorce: A Study of Multiple Outcomes National (US) Library of Medicine, 2018.]
There are only two instances of Talaq that are revocable; after the third, the marriage cannot be reinstated. If Talaq is pronounced once or twice in clear, explicit terms, the Nikah remains intact until the end of the Iddah period. However, the third Talaq is irrevocable; the man cannot remarry the same woman after the this, except after certain conditions are met. Although the third Talaq is legally effective, it is strictly prohibited (Haram) and a highly detested sin in the Qur’an and Sunnah. The third Talaq also serves as a limit to prevent any man from using divorce as an instrument to intimidate women, or to repeatedly divorce and remarry them, or like the men in the times of Jahiliyyah did; they neither divorced nor stayed with them.
Allah decrees in the Qur’an: “Divorce may be retracted twice, then the husband must retain ˹his wife˺ with honour or separate ˹from her˺ with grace. It is not lawful for husbands to take back anything of the dowry given to their wives, unless the couple fears not being able to keep within the limits of Allah. So if you fear they will not be able to keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame if the wife compensates the husband to obtain divorce. These are the limits set by Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah, they are the ˹true˺ wrongdoers.” (Al-Baqarah 2:229) The commandments continue regarding divorce before and after this Aayah.
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The most hated of permissible things to Allah is divorce” (Sunan Ibn Majah 2018). Divorce destabilizes the familial structure of society, which has been shown to negatively impact children in dangerous proportions. Research consistently demonstrates that children of divorced or single parents are more likely to experience mental health problems, academic difficulties, and behavioral issues compared to those from intact families. Children from father-absent homes are at a greater risk of becoming involved in juvenile delinquency, more likely to be incarcerated, engage in substance abuse, and violent crimes, compared to those from homes where a father is present and actively involved.^[Marriages and Divorces Our World in Data, 2020. Study: Conflict between divorced parents can lead to… Arizona State University, 2021. J. Brown Father-Absent Homes: Implications for… MPA] These findings align with the Maqasid ash-Shari’ah, particularly the preservation of progeny (hifz al-nasl), by making divorce inconvenient, yet fair, for both men and women and encouraging the maintenance of family units.
Mother
Mothers in Islam are held in the highest regard and respect. The rights of the mother over her children, especially the son, far exceed the rights of the father, though the father’s rights are also significant. A man came to Allah’s Messenger ﷺ and said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Your mother.” The man said, “Who is next?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man further said, “Who is next?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Your mother.” The man asked for the fourth time, “Who is next?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Your father.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5971).
In both spiritual and social spheres, the significance of motherhood in Islam is rooted in its profound impact on society and the immense undertaking it represents for women. “And We have commanded people to ˹honour˺ their parents. Their mothers bore them through hardship upon hardship, and their weaning takes two years. So be grateful to Me and your parents. To Me is the final return.” (31:14) Although Islam emphasizes the reverence and rights of both parents, it particularly highlights the mother’s hardships, from bearing to raising and nurturing children, and her crucial influence in shaping the moral, intellectual, and spiritual foundations of future generations—a role that cannot be quantified by any economic measure.
Islam provides a system where motherhood for women is not an obstacle to overcome, but a unique and influential career that carries spiritual and societal significance far beyond the material realm. It provides them the freedom to prioritize motherhood without the fear of financial instability. When necessary, Islam also does not categorically forbid women from working commercially when conditions for her safety that align with Shari’ah are met and the work and its logistics do not go against Shari’ah in any shape or form.
The devaluation of motherhood in postmodern philosophies, including feminism, predominantly stems from materialistic capitalism, which measures worth solely through economic output and monetary value. This material worldview inevitably frames motherhood as secondary to commercial careers, suggesting that true empowerment comes only through financial independence. However, this modern narrative of “financial independence” for women presents a corrupted idea of independence that, in reality, often translates to dependence on employers and economic systems beyond an individual’s control. Working as an employee, even in high-ranking positions, does not equate to genuine financial independence. Instead, it frequently subjects women to the whims of corporate structures, economic downturns, and the constant pressure to maintain their position in a competitive job market.
Islam, in contrast, establishes divine financial justice for women. Allah categorically mandates that men provide for women’s financial and material needs. This divine decree is not a suggestion or a cultural norm—it’s an obligation that men must fulfill. Under Islamic law, a woman’s financial security doesn’t hinge on her ability to navigate the job market or climb the corporate ladder. Instead, it’s guaranteed by the responsibilities Allah has placed upon the men in her life.
Daughters and Sisters
About daughters and sisters, the Beloved Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever has three daughters, or three sisters, or two daughters, or two sisters and he keeps good company with them and fears Allah regarding them, then Paradise is for him.” In another Hadith, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ says: “There is no man whose two daughters reach the age of puberty and he treats them kindly for the time they are together, but they will gain him admittance to Paradise.” (Sunan Ibn Majah 3670) He ﷺ also said, “Whoever is in charge of (put to test by) these daughters and treats them generously, then they will act as a shield for him from the (Hell) Fire.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5995)
The modern world realized the importance of raising and educating girls relatively recently. Islam, however, has emphasized this issue since its inception. Our beloved Prophet ﷺ has consistently and emphatically stressed this throughout his life. In another instance, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever raises two girls, then I and he will enter Paradise like these two.” And he indicated with his two fingers. (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 1914)^[Islam acknowledges the power dynamic between men and women, as highlighted in the aforementioned Ayah, where the Qur’an states, ‘…men have been provisioned by Allah over women.’ Therefore, a significant portion of the warnings, guidance (Tambeehat), and advice (Nasayah), along with legal stipulations, is directed toward men. This emphasis aims to ensure that men do not overstep boundaries and infringe upon the rights that Allah has bestowed upon women.]
There are 16 cases in which women receive more than men in inheritance, and in 4 cases, an equal share. The laws of inheritance in Islam are highly comprehensive. To summarize, the basis of Islamic inheritance rests on two primary principles: the proximity of one’s relationship to the deceased and the legal roles and responsibilities one holds. Legally, whether a mother, wife, sister, or daughter, none are accountable for spending it on anyone. For instance, there are cases where the (only and unmarried) daughter receives half of what the (only) son gets when their father passes away. However, the son is now also obligated to financially support his sister and fulfill other social financial responsibilities legally required of a man. The share the sister received belongs entirely to her, with no additional legal liabilities.^[The exception is if she is a Sahibatun Nisaab, meaning her wealth exceeds the exemption limit for giving Zakah.]
Seeking Knowledge
Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “طَلَبُ الْعِلْمِ فَرِيضَةٌ عَلَى كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ” (“Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim”) (Sunan Ibn Majah 224). Knowledge in Islam holds equal importance for both men and women, and the consequences of choosing ignorance are the same for everyone.
In Islam, education (Tarbiyah) is among the foremost rights of children, alongside provisions, love and affection. There’s no distinction made between the right to education of a male or a female child. Education in Islam extends beyond literacy; it encompasses moral, religious, and ethical upbringing, helping them build tolerance against prohibitions and creating a nourishing environment that encourages goodness, respect (Adab), and modesty (Haya).
The conflict of interests between Islamic and modern education lies in its secular and materialistic approach, coupled with a lack of moral understanding. Modern Western education relies heavily on an anti-theistic construct that standardizes Western lifestyles and positions itself directly against religion, particularly Islamic practices. For instance, disdain towards the Hijab and Muslim men with beards is very popular, even in certain ill-influenced Kashmiri schools and colleges. The indoctrination of certain postmodern Western ideas, which contradicts basic Islamic rulings, has attained a mandatory status. Co-education, mingling of male and female students, is encouraged; on-campus “hookup” and party culture, along with the use of alcohol and drugs, have become casual aspects of college and university education. While not all students engage in these extremes, it is exceedingly difficult for someone to avoid its influence.
For all these reasons and more, scholars of Islam have been advising caution for Muslim parents and practicing Muslim students, urging them to scout institutions that adhere to and respect Islamic principles. Otherwise, Muslims, with a stronger emphasis on Muslim girls,^[Given men’s financial obligations in Islam, compromises in educational settings have relatively less economic impact on women.] should not acquire knowledge through means that threaten their modesty, chastity, and faith.^[The notion that Islam prevents women from receiving education is a false idea, possibly borrowed from Western Christianity, where, according to the scripture, women have no authority in education; cannot become teachers or scholars.]
Modesty & Right to Privacy
Haya and modesty, an active effort to safeguard chastity, are ordained for both men and women. For men, the Qur’an says: “˹O Prophet!˺ Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do.” (24:30).
The obligation of covering the body, the Hijab in Islam, applies to both men and women. Etymologically, Hijab means a barrier, cover, or concealment. Its application differs between genders based on the extent of its physical application, and specific contexts and scenarios. We will briefly focus on women’s Hijab, given the context of this essay. The obligation of Hijab begins with understanding the distinction between Mahram and Non-mahram.
For women, Allah (swt) says in the Quran: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils (headcovers) over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.” (24:31)
It is haram for women or men to show any portion of Awrah or Satr, the portion of the body that is to remain clothed and hidden, in front of a Non-mahram, and in some cases, in front of certain Mahrams as well. The physical application of Hijab also involves contexts such as wearing legally appropriate clothes in public spaces.
For women, general guidelines to clothe in public or in proximity of Non-mahram includes non-translucent clothing with complete coverage of skin, including hair (hence the preference for black), and loose-fitting garments that conceal body contours. Valid and endorsed scholarly opinions diverge into two on whether the face (and some include palms as well) falls under “what normally appears” or requires covering. However, consensus holds that covering these (face and palms) becomes mandatory under certain circumstances.^[The ruilings of Hijab, as other rulinings in Shari’ah are extensive in details. For a brief overview, refer to Mufti Muhammad Shafi (r.h). Ma’ariful Qur’an. Exegesis (Tafseer) of Ayah 24:31 ]
In additional contexts and scenarios, Islam further safeguards women by limiting interactions between non-mahram men and women. Such safeguards include prohibiting unrelated men and women from being alone in enclosed spaces, and forbidding physical contact between non-mahram without legitimate necessity. These injunctions primarily serve the best interests of women, then men. Thereon, upholding the broader Maqasid ash-Shari’ah.
West & Muslim Women
If we discuss the ugly historic obsession, particularly of the Western colonial men, with Hijab and Muslim women, it won’t fall short of hypocrisy and perversion. When the French in 1834 invaded Algeria (Aljaza’ir), other than mass rapes, torture, massacring between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Algerians, their prominent policy was to get hands on the women of Algeria, literally. For them, the possession of colonized women was the defeat of Algerian men and suppression of a rebellion. “Unveiling” the women of Algeria in the name of “liberation and emancipation” was one of their many depraved strategies. Algerian women were forced and persuaded to unveil in a public setting, and made to say “Let’s be like the French woman.”
“Let’s win over the women, the rest will follow” is a popular colonial tactic. They were not only attempting to “convert” Algerian women and therefore eradicate Algerian culture, but also demonize and dehumanize the men who were portrayed as the oppressors. For the colonizer, to strip the women was not only a strategic necessity, it was also the Western perversion, to see a women half-naked, sexualized. They could not stand a woman veiled.^[Frantz Fanon’s (1925-61) essay. Algeria Unveiled.]
Even today, it is far from controversial; rather, it is ingrained in Western culture to judge a woman primarily based on her sexual appearance. Her perceived usefulness is often subjected to her physical appeal. It is striking how women are expected to casually expose their skin to strangers. Western or Westernized women have been socially engineered to wear less clothing and sexualize their appearances. Young girls are encouraged or persuaded to appear bare-skinned in front of cameras and are used as objects to generate revenue, often legally. Some feminists even promote this under the banner of “choice.” Yet, ironically, you’ll often hear terms like “socially engineered” and “persuaded” from individuals indoctrinated by extreme liberal ideologies when describing Muslim women who have chosen Islam, and who keep their bodies and sexuality private.
Concluding: Kashmir, Woman, and Islam
As we discussed, the shared belief that women are categorically inferior, in value or virtue, was acknowledged across most differing philosophies and religions in the West. Without digressing into a history lesson, similarly in Kashmir, Brahmanism and the caste-based system ensured that inequality remained unshaken. Which led to Kashmiri women facing multi-layer systemic suppression. Over 800 years ago, Islam was introduced to Kashmiris. The overwhelming majority of Kashmiris, the caste-ridden, were the first people to embrace Islam. A few Brahmin intellectuals were also among the first converts, and kings like the Buddhist ruler Rinchana. He converted under the influence of the Uyghur Sufi Syed Abdur Rahman (Shareefudin) Bulbul Shah (r.a) and was later named Sultan Sadurddin, becoming the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir. His embrace of Islam followed his dissatisfaction with Buddhism and mistrust of the Brahmin-dominated caste-based Hindu society.^[ G.N. Gauhar. Sheikh Noor-ud-Din Wali (Nund Rishi) 1988.]
Cultural Revolution and Islam in Kashmir, briefly
The presence of Muslims in Kashmir has been traced back more than two centuries before Sultan Sadurddin, or less than 140 years^[Mahmood Hussain. Kashmir’s Amir-e-Kabir Days. Kashmir Life - Issue 08, Vol 11] after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Records of this are also found in Kalhana’s Rajtarangini. Despite this, there was no considerable growth in Islam or conversions, willing or otherwise, even after Rinchana’s conversion to Islam and subsequent Muslim rule. It was only with the advent of the revolutionary time of Mir Sayyid Ali Hamdani (Shah-e-Hamdan) (r.a) that Kashmir saw a historic transformation in religion, dissemination of knowledge, craft, and cultural norms. There is no unambiguous way to know if Shah-e-Hamdan (r.a) traveled to Kashmir with the intention of propagating Islam, but we know that Shah-e-Hamdan (r.a) and his followers fled Persia due to fears of persecution by Amir Timur and entered Kashmir as refugees in 1379 CE.
This was also the period when Lalishari, most famously known as Lal Ded, lived. At the time, she embodied the collective dissatisfaction of Kashmir’s oppressed classes. As a renowned Wakh poetess, Lal was also an influential social reformer. Her most notable criticisms targeted discriminatory and intolerant Hindu social norms, superstitions, and idolatry. Lal Ded’s Wakhs, along with the reformists of her time, challenged the established norms and societal consensus, sparking an intellectual rebellion within the caste-ridden society that served as a bridge to Islam.”
Lal was one of the first to recognize and reform the favoritism in knowledge that plagued Kashmir. She abandoned and preached against the use of Sanskrit, since all literature was in Sanskrit and only Brahmins could learn this language. Instead, Lal expressed her ideas and shared her wisdom in widely understood spoken Kashmiri, despite being well-read in Sanskrit and taught by Brahmin priests. The influence of Lal Ded’s movement laid the fertile ground for Sheikh Nooruddin Wali (r.a), the founder of the Rishi order, who initiated one of the most important intellectual and spiritual revolutions in Kashmir.^[Dr. R.K. Parmu. A History of Muslim Rule in Kashmir 1969.]
Distortion of Islam, & Liberal Thought
In contemporary Kashmir, there appears to be a collective gap in historical memory. Kashmir has forgotten that its cultural transformation is closely tied to the reformation and social revolution that Islam brought to the region. The arrival of Islam effectively abolished the caste system and systemic inequalities that had long oppressed women and marginalized communities under ancient cultural norms.
Kashmir has managed to bring about a culture that blurs the line between authentic Islam and human inventions. The widening gap, particularly between Muslim scholars and the broader Kashmiri population, has allowed fragmented and distorted versions of Islam to take root. With youth increasingly disengaged from primary sources, the dismissal and disregard of Islamic knowledge and those who possess it has become normalized.
The secularization of Kashmir, realized through globalized liberal ideas like feminism, relies on this dismissive culture. It undermines and suppresses native intellectual thought by borrowing from hegemonic Western ideas masquerading as moral awakening. It falsely presumes that Kashmiris lack a robust indigenous moral framework to address morality or women’s issues and is convinced that the popular discourse of liberal ideas would invariably benefit Kashmiris and Kashmiri women—an assumption that has frequently proven false in other contexts. Feminism as an ideology also inherently tends to align itself with established power structures to realize certain core beliefs, as discussed in second-wave feminism. Corporations and colonial institutions, in turn, often co-opt feminist discourse, ostensibly promoting foreign notions of equality and women’s rights, to advance their own agendas. This essay cannot sufficiently explore the politics surrounding Kashmiri women. However, case studies^[Please refer to these concise yet insightful works. Lila Abu-Lughod. Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections… 2002. Frantz Fanon’s (1925-61) essay. Algeria Unveiled.] on how power structures have tried to subdue and coerce women to achieve their ulterior motives, both in the past and present, will help you draw parallels.
Kashmiri Feminists are pushing to achieve the same inconsistent idea of absolute equality and gender individualism, which partly was an upgrade for the Western woman in the early 20th century, but for a Muslim woman in Kashmir, it significantly downgrades her status and takes away from what she is already entitled to. Kashmiri feminists who also identify as Muslims attempt to superimpose secular liberal constructs onto the Islamic framework. They overlook the fact that these two fundamentally distinct ethical paradigms have incompatible premises and cannot coexist in their absolute forms. Even when attempting to reinvent feminism from a non-Western, non-white perspective—one that explicitly identifies “Western Feminism” as the other and acknowledges its limitations—the very framework of feminist thought still remains the frame of reference. As long as the fundamental constituents of feminism remain intact, it will always refer back to its inescapable Western origins. Friedan’s critical statement in The Second Stage, “…women have almost a religious feeling about the women’s movement…” is gradually creeping into Kashmiri feminism as well. Feminist ideas are increasingly regarded as a doctrine with tenets that are beyond question.
Moral decline Through Eyes of Islam (Conclusion)
Despite the rational arguments I have made, I acknowledge that the adoption of popular, mainstream feminist ideas by many youth in Kashmir is an emotional response to seriously unfair circumstances they have either witnessed or endured. This emotional reaction, while understandable, has hastily resorted to an ideology that has proven problematic in many instances, as demonstrated. The pervasive ignorance about Islam that has plagued the cultural Muslims in Kashmir, has led to conflating Islam with the injustices present in our society.
I am not making a blanket statement when I say, we are all collectively guilty of overlooking and undermining the rights Islam has categorically granted to people. Despite having an Islamic system of rights that truly emancipated our ancestors, many individuals, who are less impressed by their own heritage, are eager to adopt experimental foreign ideas in the name of reformation. While we can educate Muslim Kashmiri women and men about their Islamic rights and responsibilities, we proudly embrace institutionalized secular education devoid of God and morality. When we use vague Western ideas to address problems unique to us, we also risk importing their moral inconsistencies and extreme counterparts we have briefly discussed in the above chapters. Just as the ‘Red Pill’ or MGTOW movements emerged in the West, feminism in Kashmir could potentially, and some would argue, has already led to similar reactionary extremist movements.
While I lack survey data, I assume—and you might agree—that almost all sisters in Kashmir do not receive their rightful share of inheritance. It has become socially awkward for a sister to demand her portion. Women in other roles are also deprived of due inheritance. Mahr often goes straight into the treasury of the husband’s family without hesitation or proper consent. People settle on exorbitant Mahr on the naive basis of “ye legi donweni” (it will benefit both) while completely ignoring the fact that the bride is the sole owner of that Mahr. Her right to ownership of wealth or property is compromised. Mothers are increasingly becoming victims of abandonment, leaving many without support in their old age. Dowry and unjust financial burdens on the bride’s family still exist, leading to delayed marriages. Women face pressure to work commercially after marriage. Co-education and free mixing (Ikhtilat) undermine women’s safety.
Few examples among too many to ponder as we are steering ourselves to look the other way. We don’t just lack the knowledge; we lack the certainty in our Deen and the solutions it provides, not just for Muslims but for society as a whole. We brush over the fact that Shariah has also made us socially responsible, as individuals and as a collective, as there are Fara’iz (legal obligations), Kifayah (communal) and ‘Ayn (personal). Many of our customs still reflect unjust, pre-Islamic practices that should be abandoned. Our collective energy is wasted on attempts to emulate the Angrez. Parents desperately want their children to adopt their culture and language while disregarding their moral foundations and identity.
Our identity is not merely rooted in “culture” as it is in the eyes of an orientalist. It is rather founded on the evolution of our fundamental beliefs and the ancestry of our native intellectual thought. And as we move through history, we shall self-correct and self-realize. There is no alternative but to engage our minds and work earnestly on campaigns, guided by our scholars, that enable the existing structure of rights and values. Our regional social issues require indigenous solutions—an autonomous body that recognizes and respects our historical, intellectual, and religious foundations. We must enlighten ourselves and learn from people of knowledge about unaltered Islam and educate our people. Islam is the Truth from the Creator of everything, and it benefits all humanity, in this life and in the hereafter (Akhirah), without exception.
Allah knows best. May Allah guide us to the Truth.
Ending Note
Referring to the preface again, this essay is only an overview. Please go through the footnotes if you haven’t already, and if you’d like to, pick up the recommended reading list below. The Islamic Rulings (Masa’il) explained in this essay are brief, and saying that is also an understatement. Intention behind mentioning these rulings was to address my claim of “nuanced” approach of Islam, and to iron-out some misconceptions for the reader. Even though the Masa’il have been validated by a credible Islamic scholar, those are not detailed enough to be taken as a reference for real-world application.
Wassalam.
