The various aspects of the life of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are all so sublime, that in the matter of choice, a writer on the subject soon finds himself baffled and selection becomes very nearly impossible. In consideration of present day needs, however, I wish to take up that side of the Holy Prophet’s life which concerns the way in which he purged the world of that form of utter slavery which had been for all time the curse of humanity. I mean the slavery of women.
Before the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) women in all countries were in the position of slaves and chattels, and their slavery could not but have reacted adversely even on men; for sons of slaves cannot assimilate the spirit of freedom.
There is no doubt woman, either because of her beauty or because of her sterling character, has always been able, in individual cases, to dominate over men, but freedom thus obtained could not be termed true freedom, for the simple reason that it was not hers by way of right. It was only a matter of exception to the general rule, and freedom which is exceptional, can hardly lead to the culture of true aspirations.
The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had his advent about 1,350 years ago. Before his time, no religion or nation afforded to woman such freedom as she could use by way of right. Of course in countries where no law prevailed, she was free from all disabilities. Yet even this kind of freedom cannot be called true freedom. It is rather described as license. True freedom is that which is reaped out of a state of civilization and conformity to law. The sort of freedom we get when we break the bounds of the law is not freedom at all because such freedom does not generate any strength of character.
At the time of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and before, woman was placed in a condition in which she was not the owner of her property; her husband was regarded as the owner of her property. She did not have a share in the property of her father. Nor could she inherit the property of her husband, though in some cases she had the right of managing it during the husband’s lifetime. When married, she was either assigned to her husband for good as his property, and in no circumstances could she be separated from him; or in the alternative, it was given to the husband to divorce her but not given to her to separate herself from the husband, however afflicted she might have been.
Should the husband desert her, cease to discharge his obligations towards her or run away from her, there was no law to protect her. It was obligatory on her to be resigned to her lot, and work for a living both for herself and her children. The husband was entitled, out of bad temper, to beat his wife; she was not to raise a voice against it. Should the husband die, the wife, in some countries, fell into the hands of her husband’s relatives, who could then marry her to whomsoever they liked, either in charity or in return of some benefits received. In some places, on the other hand, she was merely the property of her husband. Some husbands would sell their wives or lose them in gambling and betting, and when they did so, they were all considered to be within their rights.
A woman had no right over her children whether in her position of dependence as wife, or in a position of independence of her husband. In domestic affairs she had no privilege. Even in religion she had no status. Of the abiding spiritual blessings, she was to have no share. In consequence, husbands used to squander the property of their wives and abandon them without providing for their subsistence. She could not, even out of her own property, give away, in charity, or help her relatives except with the consent of her husband, and a husband who looked with greed on the property of his wife could hardly give his consent in such a matter.
Of the property of her parents, to whom children are bound by a most deep and affectionate tie, woman was deprived of all share. And yet daughters have as much claim on their parents as have the sons. Parents who out of a sense of justice, would give away during their lifetime some of their property to their daughters, prepared only for strife in their families. It would not occur to the sons that after the parent’s death they (the sons) would inherit the whole of their property (and therefore should not grudge their sisters receiving occasional gifts from their parents); all they considered was that their sisters, for the time being were having more than they.
Of the property, similarly, of her husband — with whom a wife has the relation of complete union — woman was again, deprived altogether. Distant relatives of the husband could each claim a share, but not the wife one, indeed, who was the possessor of his confidence, a life-long partner of his and whose labour and care must have so largely contributed to his income. On the other hand, when she managed all her husband’s property, she did not have any genuine right over any portion of it. While she could spend out of the income of that property she could not dispose any part of it. In acts of charity, therefore, she was prevented from taking part in the manner she liked.
When the husband oppressed his wife, she could not be separated from him. In communities in which separation was at all possible, it was on conditions under which self-respecting women preferred death to separation. For instance, a condition of separation was that proof should be furnished establishing the misconduct of either party, as well as ill treatment on the part of the husband. What was still worse was that in cases in which it was impossible for a woman to live with her husband instead of complete separation, she was only allowed to live apart, a state of living which itself is a form of torture, for in this way she was compelled to lead an empty, purposeless life.
In some cases it happened that while the husband could divorce his wife whenever he liked, the wife in no case could demand a divorce. If the husband deserted her, or abandoned the country without providing for her, she was obliged to linger through life without the right to devote herself usefully to her country or community. Married life, instead of being a life of happiness, became for her a life of misery. Her obligation it was, not only to undertake the duties of her husband and of herself but also to wait for her husband. The duty of the husband, namely to find a living for the household, became hers, as also her own duty, the care and upbringing of her children mental discomfort on the one hand, and material responsibilities on the other.
All this, in short, was tolerated in the case of this poor, unprotected creature. Women were beaten and considered the property of their husbands. When the husbands died, widows were forcefully married to the relatives of their husbands, or else sold for money. In fact, husbands themselves sold away their wives. Indian
princes like the Panawas lost their wife (there was one for many) in gambling, and against the law of the land, a noble princess like Dropadi could not raise the slightest voice.
In the education or upbringing of their children, the mothers were not consulted and they had no rights over their children. If the father and mother separated, the children were handed over to the father. Woman had nothing to do with the household. Whenever the husband liked, he could drive her out of the house, and she was condemned to wander about homelessly. (cont)
No comments:
Post a Comment