Category: Chastity

A quick scan of online materials on the subject of women in the Koran reveals that this religious text can refract in multiple ways. Middle East correspondent Carla Power (2015) concurs with this judgment, further elucidating that a civil rights activist “may discover freedoms in the same chapter in which a twelfth-century Cairo cleric saw strictures” (p. 1). People holding different ideologists – terrorists, moralists, fundamentalists, democrats, and even egalitarians – can point to a certain Koranic passage in support of their respective causes. Against this backdrop, it is not a rarity that people read the Koran selectively, tearing phrases out of context. Yet others deliberately misinterpret the Koran to mislead their interlocutors into a false sense of Islam’s peacefulness or hostility or to otherwise serve their fell ends. Depending on both the dominant ideologies and their own ulterior motives, even Islamic exegetes have historically interpreted the Koran in different ways. As far as women are concerned, the Koran has also received rather polarized reviews. More specifically, whereas human-rights activists in the western world have traditionally pointed to the Koran as the main culprit behind female disempowerment in the Islamic world, Muslim apologists in the Middle East and beyond have recently embarked on the quest to portray Islam as a pioneering force in women’s rights. As a result, the truth about the role of women as explained by the Koran gets lost in a welter of conflicting interpretations.

Given the problem as it is outlined above, this essay seeks to better understand the Koran’s attitude to and treatment of women. To this end, the author of this essay relies primarily on the original text – the Koran – rather than its interpretations by other authors, although occasional references to other authoritative sources are made. The author focuses on the original text to ensure the greatest possible objectivity on the subject, so as to avoid falling prey to the misinterpretations of other commentators. At this point of the research process, the preliminary findings allow the author of this essay to advance a tentative hypothesis that the Koran is mainly misogynistic in its stance on women, even though it stresses the equality of men and women in some contexts.

It is imperative to note at the outset of this essay that women have received significant attention in the Koran. Indeed, the list of women-related issues mentioned in this Islamic religious text run the gamut of importance from perfuming and veiling to marriage and equality in general. However, before analyzing specific references to women, it needs to be noted that not all such references carry negative connotations. Indeed, despite the commonly held belief to the contrary, the Koran seems to be propounding many principles and teachings that are, in fact, favorable towards women. For example, there are verses in the Koran that attest to the equality of men and women in the eyes Allah:

For Muslim men and women, – for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise, – for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward (Koran 33: 35).

Although this verse does not state explicitly that men and women are born equal and should be treated equally, it suggests that women can achieve the same levels of dignity and spirituality as men can achieve. In fact, a close reading of the remainder of the text shows that the Koran propounds multiple other teachings and commandments in the same manner, as if to reaffirm that the same rights and privileges apply to both “believing men and women” (24: 30-31; 33: 58; 48: 25; 57: 12; 71: 28). Whenever Allah speaks of piety, hypocrisy or any other human quality, good or bad, he almost invariably puts a verbal sign of equality between them (9: 67-72; 33: 73; 57: 13-18; 85: 10). Attesting to the perceived equality of men and women is also verse 24: 26, which proclaims that impure women are for impure man and vice versa, while pure men are for pure women and vice versa. In this sense, the Koran does not denigrate the value of women relative to the value of men.

In verse 3: 195, Allah invokes the principle of gender equality even more specifically, stating: “be he male or female, you are members of one another.” The Koran alludes to gender equality in some other contexts too. For example, in verse 30: 21, Allah says that “they [your wives] are your garments and ye are their garments.” Again, this metaphor could be interpreted as suggesting that men and women are equal. Furthermore, commenting on the tendency of men to lament the birth of baby girls, Allah reasons that their judgment is miserable and wrong (16: 58-59). In propounding the equality of males and females, the Koran does not stop at this level, continuing to explain that men and women are – to a certain extent – equal, not least because they were created “of like nature” and “from a single person” (4:2).

Yet, although all the aforementioned verses from the Koran could indeed be invoked to argue that the Islamic religious text advocates the equality of men and women, there are very few verses that do so in a straightforward manner. It appears from the consulted secondary sources that Muslim apologists often refer to verse 2:228 as one of the strongest indications of gender equality in the Koran (Wadud, 1999). More specifically, the verse proclaims that “women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable” (2: 228). Taken out of context, such phrases can indeed be construed as further affirming the equality of men and women in matters of divorce. Yet, if the entire verse is quoted, it appears that the rights of men and women in matters of divorce are suddenly not as equal as originally thought. Thus, the verse makes a reservation that men “have a degree of advantage” over women (2: 228). In essence, a close reading of the Koran demonstrates that this religious text makes multiple other such reservations. For example, verse 4: 19 forbids men from inheriting women against their will and treating them harshly as long as these women have not “been guilty of open lewdness.” In other words, those women who have been found guilty of lewdness deserve harsh treatment and other similarly condign punishments, according to the Koran.

While the verses cited in the previous paragraphs could be interpreted as ascribing at least a degree of equality to men and women, there are multiple other verses in the Koran that do just the contrary. Thus, the adverse man-to-woman and wife-to husband ratios are just one common thread to be extracted and distilled from the Koran. The most evident iniquities are, perhaps, related to the Koranic teaching that men have the right to marry several women, while women do not enjoy the same right. Verse 4: 3, for example, permits men to “marry women of your choice, two or three or four.” What is more, some verses even entitle men to take women as their out-of-wedlock slaves (4:24; 33: 50-52). Furthermore, the Koran repeatedly makes it clear that the man has an undeniable dominion over the bodies of his wives. Verse 2: 223, for example, proclaims: “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” In essence, this strongly worded verse allows men to treat their wives as little more than property, even though the Koran does say that men should desist from violence and other enormities in relation to women on multiple other occasions (4: 3-5). Lest criticism should appear too harsh to the Koran, it should be mentioned that this religious text insists that men and women are “members of one another” (3: 195) and created “from a single person” (4:2). Yet, if the metaphor used in verse 2: 223 is used as a yardstick against which to measure the tone of the Koran, this religious text never uses similarly strong language to emphasize that men belong to women. Other examples where the Koran vitiates the value of women by exalting men above them are legion. Verse 5: 7, for example, proclaims:

If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourself clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands.

Verse 4: 43 exhorts men to do exactly the same after contact with women. In other words, the Koran equates contact – either sexual or casual – with women to other impurities. It makes no similar admonitions to women who had contact with men. Likewise, it should be noted in this context that the Koran diminishes the value of women in less obvious ways. For example, verse 52: 27 reads that “those who believe not in the hereinafter name the angels with female names.” In essence, although the Koran does not explicitly explain whether angels were males or females, this verse implies that the very practice of giving female names to divine beings like angels is offensive. By extension, however, this verse could be said to epitomize, if not endorse, the practice of treating women as inferior to men.

The iniquitous treatment of women in the Koran also manifests itself clearly in matters of inheritance and court testimony. Thus, verse 4: 11 advocates that the male should inherit “a portion equal to that of two females.” Verse 4: 176 offers similar calculations, insisting that males should inherit more than females. In the same vein, the Koran suggests that men are more worthy than women in that their testimonies are more reliable. More specifically, verse 2: 282 explains that a man engaged in legal proceedings should “get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women,” so that one of these women could correct the testimony of the other in case of need. Regardless of how Muslim apologists and critics of Islam interpret this verse, common sense indicates that men’s testimony has greater value than women’s testimony from the perspective of the Koran.

Importantly, even when Koranic commandments are not related to the matters of equality, they can be restrictive in nature. As far as veiling is concerned, for example, the Koran refers to the concepts of chastity and righteousness to explain that women should “guard their modesty” by concealing their beauty and lowering their gaze in the presence of people who are not their immediate relatives (24: 31). Only elderly women, the Koran maintains, have a moral right to take off their outer garments in the presence of strangers, provided that they do not make a completely “wanton display of their beauty” (24: 60). From the standpoint of most westerners, such commandments can be interpreted as restrictive and dogmatic, if not outright debilitating (Wadud, 1999). From the perspective of many Muslims, however, such commandments only serve to reinforce a tradition – the tradition that promotes female chastity. Overall, different interpretations of the practice exist. Yet, as long as women living in conservative Muslim societies disagree with such commandments, it could be said that the Koran does stifle their self-expression.

In conclusion, this essay has shown that the Koran offers an ambiguous portrayal of women. On the face of things, Koranic teachings imply that righteous women are equal to righteous men in the sight of Allah. The religious text admonishes repeatedly that males need to treat women with dignity in most cases. At the same time, however, the Koran also justifies harsh treatment of women in certain situations, such as open lewdness. Furthermore, this essay has shown that the Koran diminishes the value of women relative to the value of men. Women’s limited inheritance rights and their diminished capacity of testifying before the court demonstrate this point clearly. Their obligation to veil against their will, as prescribed in the Koran, is yet another confirmation that the Koran is in many ways misogynistic in its attitudes to women.

References

1. The Koran (A. Ali, Trans.). Medina, Saudi Arabia: King Fahd Holy Quran Printing Complex.
2. Power, C. (2015, November 6). What the Koran really says about women. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/koran-carla-power/index.html
3. Wadud, A. (1999). Quran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP.

While Hume directly references and considers the status of women only once in his Treatise on Human Nature he makes various implicit references to the differences of the sexes throughout the work. In Book III Hume lays out his argument that moral judgement is derived from mental impressions, emotions that attach to particular ideas, and not rational distinctions as we like to believe. Reason, Hume holds, is has no meaningful footing in discussions of morality. The way things ought to be can never be derived from the way things are and this is where ethical theories fall into a naturalistic fallacy. Hume later delves into the notion of justice and posits that justice and injustice are examples of artificial virtues created by social convention. Artificial virtues vary from society to society. He frames these conventions in a historical context and analyzes how they came to exist. This historical analysis offers accounts for the existence of laws, governments, and the patriarchal conventions that govern women’s behaviors. We see in Section 12 how he goes about showing that his system explains why chastity and modesty are valued in regard to women, the so-called fair sex, more than in regard to men.

Up until this point in the Treatise Hume’s system has explained the universal approval of adherence to certain laws on the basis of the general interests of society. To further illustrate, Hume turns to the values of chastity and modesty placed upon women at the time. He seeks to demonstrate how these duties can be explained by the general interests of society. Hume observes that the dependency of infants on their parents requires that both parents maintain an active role in the child’s life for an extended period of time. To ensure that men are properly motivated to respect the responsibility they have to their children chastity in women must be considered a virtue. The argument of the time is that women have a strong temptation to infidelity that can only be countered by the punishment of a damaged reputation. This is the only way to ensure that the father can be secure in the knowledge that the child he’s expected to care for is indeed his own. After all, it’s hard to obtain the legal proof of infidelity required to deter deviant behavior through punishment and it’s clear that any child a woman carries and births is her own. Shame is a punishment that can be inflicted on the basis of weak evidence than that needed for most formal court proceedings.

However, it seems that human behavior is governed by immediate, rather than remote, motives. Thus present temptations will overcome the knowledge of the punishment of shame in this case. Moreover, women being the calculating creatures that they are, may figure that they will be able to somehow avoid the punishment of shame. So then if the allure of the immediate temptation is to be tamed there needs to be something more to the punishment of shame that will deter women from infidelity. A suitable addition can be found in highly praising chastity. While chastity and modesty in men is also lauded as a virtue it is not nearly so lauded as these traits are in women. This is because there seems to be no need. There is, after all, no similar concern for women that they may be raising a child that is not their own. They are the ones birthing the babies. The obligation, then, that men have to adhering to rules of chastity mirror the obligation of nations under individual law as opposed to that of individuals under morality.

In his essay The Subjection of Women Stuart Mill argues that the existing social conventions that work to subjugate women are unjust and hinder human development in that they promote misery and prevent good. While women were gaining more rights during this time, like the right to marriage, they were still lacking in rights in comparison to men. According to Mill Victorian custom insisted that the role of women was to please and serve others and to place her own desires on hold. Women were thus taught to seek a suitable husband and submit to his power. The cult of domesticity, a conception of female gender roles that asserted that women were to remain in the home, attending to the household affairs and raising the children they bore for their husbands. Mill instead argued that these customs hindered women from reaching their full potential and that women should instead be granted more rights and freedoms. He argued that the conventional reliance of a wife on a husband to navigate the world outside of the home created a type of slavery between the sexes. He notes, however, that unlike the master-slave relationship of the transatlantic slave trade, the husband desires both her labor and her good sentiments. The husband thus orchestrates ways to ensure that he has absolute control over his submissive and domestic subject. To the casual observer this dynamic may seem natural and properly aligned with the muted nature of women. However, women have rarely, if ever, been allowed to advocate for themselves and speak on their own natures in any significant way. Thus, we cannot be sure that what appears natural is actually such. Further Mill challenges the idea that women are somehow inherently inferior to men and argues that the current system of subjugation ought to be replaced with a system of equality that permits no place of power of one sex over the other. While Mill is aware that his position challenges the long upheld beliefs and practices of the time he points out that these beliefs are founded on the conversion of a physical perception of difference into a legal reality. He holds, then, that the subjugation of women on the grounds of them being the so-called weaker sex is unfounded.

Mill asserts that the true natures of women will remain unknowable until women are able to speak openly and freely of themselves on their own behalves.

I love my dog, she is very soft and pretty. She is loyal and sweet but she has a skin condition so when I give her a bath she starts to lose her fur and smell but I still love her. If I was infatuated with her I would ask my parents to get rid of her and move on to the next dog. The love I have for my dog was from time, care, and attention. However, with Shakespeare’s characters, they all immediately are infatuated with instant gratification. In William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare uses the relationships between characters to demonstrate the thematic concept of love vs. infatuation.

Shakespeare illustrates the thematic concept of love vs. Infatuation with Romeo and Rosaline. For instance, Romeo is obsessed with Rosaline even though she has taken a vow of chastity. “Still stalking sleep, that is not what it is! This love feels I that feel no love in this” (I.i.188-196). Romeo has been locking himself in his room, for a few days sulking that Rosaline has taken a vow of chastity and vows to stay that way till death. Romeo will do/say anything to get Rosline to go on a date with him. Furthermore, Romeo will go to the party just to find Rosaline and convince her to change her mind and not take the vow of chastity. “I’ll go along, no such sight to be shown, But to rejoice in splendor of my own”(I.ii.107-108). Romeo is Infatuated and not in love with rosaline because one Romeo is not invited to the party but he will go to the party only to see Rosaline. o Foremost, Romeo is infatuated with Rosaline even though she has told him that she is not interested in him and has taken a vow of chastity.

Love vs. infatuation occurs between Paris and Juliet when he constantly ask for her hand. Particularly, when Paris asks for her hand after Juliet’s cousin had been slain. “These times of woe afford no time to woo… I would that Thursday were tomorrow”(III.iv.8 and 32). Paris believes that sad times aren’t a good time to talk about marriage but he is so infatuated over Juliet to me that he will do anything to make sure that she will marry him. Even though Juliet is disgusted by Paris and has decided that she does not want to marry him. Additionally, Juliet even complains that she does not want to marry Paris in front of her mother. “He shall not make me there a joyful bride! I wonder at this haste, that I must wed Ere he that should be husband comes to woo.”(III.v.132-134) When someone is infatuated you can easily move on to another girl so if Paris were to see a girl that was prettier than Juliet then he would be infatuated with her instead of Juliet. Also Paris says that he does not want to marry Juliet in a tragic time like this to then later on say that he wants to marry her on Thursday. Furthermore, Paris’s infatuation for Juliet has led him to want to marry her in weeks after knowing her.

Romeo and Juliet had started the relationship as an infatuation. For example, only a few hours after the party she proclaims her love for him. “I wish but for the thing I have. My bounty is boundless as the sea, My love as deep; the more I give to thee, The more I have, for both are infinite. I hear some noise within” (II.ii.145-149). Juliet would do anything that Romeo wants in order to be with him. Romeo would even leave his family just to be with Juliet and this shows how infatuated, Romeo is for Juliet. Moreover, Juliet asks Romeo to marry her tomorrow “Thy purpose marriage send me word tomorrow, by one that I’ll procure to com to thee,where and what time thou wilt perform the rite”(II.ii.151-153). Juliet does this so suddenly because when someone is infatuated for someone else they will do anything to make it a lifetime Bond. Romeo only agrees to this because he is so infatuated with Juliet. Ultimately, Romeo and Juliet do get married and later on they do fall in love because of the hard decision that Juliet had to make.

The lesson we learned in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet that connects to 2019 is that we should take things slower in a relationship. A lot of teenagers have a relationship via cell phone and social media which gives some instant gratification when things are going well but it can be tragic when there is no feedback. Teenagers should put their cellphones down and stop posting fake videos. They should not be like Romeo and Juliet with their love that wasn’t real. It is important for teenagers on Snapchat or YouTube to get “likes” or get a “shoutout,” these things are not real when we tie our emotions to other people’s opinions about a post on social media. It is similar to Romeo and Juliet’s reaction when their families dislike the relationship. We should learn from this play to take things slow, not relying on other people’s opinions and pay attention to others.

ABSTRACT

Measure for Measure play by William Shakespeare believed to have written in 1603 or 1604 . The play’s first recorded performance occurred in 1604. Shakespeare’s representation of women is his geniues. Mostly uses strong female characters in his novel. In personality the women in his plays may vary. Women characters in his play are mostly underestimated. His wit is however portrayed through them. Measure for Measure is set in Vienna. A city in which women in that period were objectified as sexual objects. Women in Vienna were effectively portrayed in terms of their sexuality and their relationship to men, which enabled the rulers to control them. The chastity of a Women defined her. She was expected to be pure till the night of her marriage. Also she had to get along with her dowry when given in marriage. The status of a women was measure by her chastity. Considered as the weaker section she also had the need to be protected. Clearly seen when Duke Vincentio comes for the rescue of Isabella. Not only this but a women’s fate is decided by the patriarchy.

Actual Paper

Being strong women and having their own view points do they really have the need to be protected? Women having her own mind has been not given the status she deserves throughout the play Measure for Measure “ Isabella is seen having strong personality from the very begning she wants to become a nun. A decision taken and maintained throughout the play. She very well knows what is right and what is wrong. This can be clearly seen when she keeps her stand in front of her Angelo stating “For which I would not plead, but that I must, For which I must not plead, but that I am” She is well aware of the wrong done by his brother Claudio and knows she shouldn’t plead for his forgiveness yet of the love of her brother does. So what happens next is the questionable incident.

Angelo having all authority and power wants Isabella to give upon her chastity and only then will be free his brother. Isn’t it an irony that he wants to commit the same sin for which he has put Claudio in prison. She is objectified as a means of gaining sexual pleasure. Claudio at first wants Isabella to give into Angelo so that he is free, is this what she deserves? Claudio can be seen as using her as a device to free himself. However her clear Standpoint and courage shown to be consistent on her decision makes Claudio change his mind. Isabella’s “no” has been a strong standpoint she maintained throughout the play. In the end of the play when the Duke proposes her for marriage her answer is “silence”. The silence she maintained in the end is again remarkable as it can be interpreted as a “No” to his question. There can be a possibility that she wants to get into “nummery ” the desire she has from the very begning. Yet it’s a questionable “silence” as it can be also seen as a unwanted yes that she will have to say because of the power and authority of Duke Vincentio. The whole idea as to why Duke Vicnetio saved Isabella from Angelo when disguised as a friar can be because of his own desire to get Isabella. Duke Vincentio is seen to be doing good for Isabella, helping her throughout however the status he has for a women is very contradicting. On the other hand he was Mariana as a prey to to save Isabella.

A women is made to give up on her chastity to save the chastity of another how does that can even be called a help. Instead he could just use his authority and exercise his powers and save Isabella and Mariana both. Mariana on the other hand is a women rejected by the Agnelo just because she lost her dowry is a shipwreck. So in this case she has been objectified as a means of gaining wealth. Duke Vincentio orders lucio to marry the women who has begotten his child. He immediately answers that she is a “whore”. That means he can use her as a ameans of gaining the pleasure he wants but cannot give the women the honor and dignity she deserves. So to put altogether the status a women has can be put up in one “patriarchy”. The only question that remains unresolved is how can Isabella being a women plan with friar allow Mariana to give into Angelo. Did she not thing for once that it is wrong for her to make another women do what she herself cannot imagine being put through. The measure of status given to a women by mean is clearly understood but the status of a women for another women is questionable.

APPENDIX

Over the year the text gained popularity and some of the film adaptions are. The 2015 film M4M: Measure for Measure re-contextudizes Isabella’s characters changing her to gender from female to male. In the 2006 version, the play is set in modern-day British Army.