Toronto Baptist Seminary

& Bible College

CONTRASTING CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM VIEWS

ON THE FEMALE GENDER

A Paper

presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

Comparative World Religions

by

J. Luis Dizon

April 2011

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. SOME POSITIVE REMARKS 5

3. ON ISLAMIC MARRIAGE 9

4. THE SOCIAL, INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL VIEWS ON WOMEN 17

5. WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES IN CONTRAST 21

6. CONCLUSION 27

APPENDIX ONE: Rape, Zina and Incest 28

APPENDIX TWO: Glossary of Islamic Terms Used 30

BIBLIOGRAPHY 32

2
 INTRODUCTION

On August 4, 2010, the CNN website carried the story of a young Afghan woman named Bibi

Aisha, whose nose and ears were cut off by her husband.1 Coming from a family in Oruzgan

where all the members were affiliated with the Taliban, she was married off when she was only

sixteen years old. After being “imprisoned” under their custody for two years, she attempted to

escape but was caught by police in Kandahar. She was brought back home, and then put under a

Taliban court trial for bringing shame and dishonour upon the family. The court ruled that her

nose and ears must be cut off, and this was done by her husband. She was then left for dead in

the mountains of Oruzgan, until she was rescued and has now gone to the United States for

reconstructive surgery.

These and other similar stories on the brutal treatment of women are constantly pouring out

of countries where Shari’a is implemented. Islamic apologists (as well as many mainstream

media pundits who follow their arguments) claim that these kinds of atrocities are the result of an

extremist minority’s interpretation of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and are not truly representative

of Islam. In fact, these same apologists will go on to argue that Islam (properly interpreted)

actually elevates the status of women and gives them greater dignity than western society, and

that embracing Islam will result in greater rights and freedoms for women. The famous Islamic

theologian and scholar Abul A’la Mawdudi even went so far as to assert that “[the] concept of the

sanctity of chastity and the protection of women can be found nowhere else except in Islam,” 2

and that “the history of the Muslims, apart from individual lapses, has been free from ... crime[s]

against womanhood.”3
1
Atifa Abawi, " Afghan Woman Whose Nose, Ears Cut Off travels to U.S.," CNN World,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/afghanistan.mutilated.girl.update/index.html (Accessed April 8,
2011).
2
Abul A’la Mawdudi, Human Rights in Islam (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1990), 18.
3
Ibid.

3
 These claims will be examined in this article, in order to see whether the arguments that are

produced by these Islamic apologists hold water. Furthermore, the actual teachings of the Qur’an

and ahadith on the status of women will be examined to see what they have to say on the matter.

Finally, since this paper is presented from the standpoint of the Christian worldview, the biblical

teaching on the status of women will be presented in contrast with the Islamic teaching on the

topic, and objections to the biblical position that are presented by Muslim apologists will be

addressed and refuted.

4
 SOME POSITIVE REMARKS

To begin with, it would be unfair to present the Islamic view of women as being one-sidedly

negative. There has undoubtedly been some improvement on the rights of women in certain areas

of life with the advent of Islam. One such improvement concerns the area of female infanticide.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, there was a custom among the pagans wherein female infants would be

buried alive because daughters were considered less prestigious. It was also done “lest anyone

should become their son-in-law.”4 This horrible practice was abolished under Islamic rule, and

the condemnation of this practice is evident in the Qur’an, particularly in Sura 81:8-9, where it is

said that on the last day “the female (infant), buried alive, is question – For what crime she was

killed.”5 The implication is that there will be justice for these infants on the last day. The

condemnation is made even more explicit in Sura 6:151, where it is written: “kill not your

children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them” (cf. Sura 17:31).

That being said, however, it is to be noted that the prevalence of this custom of female

infanticide has been greatly exaggerated by Islamic apologists and historians in their attempts to

portray a humane, life-honouring portrait of Islam. The fact is that this custom, though it did

exist among the pagan Arabs, was not quite as widespread as it is often held. As David Wood

explains:

In their efforts to provide evidence for Islam, Muslims tend to exaggerate the
immorality in Arabia before the rise of Islam, so much so that they sometimes
conflict with their own claims. For instance, it is often claimed that female
infanticide was horribly widespread in Arabia, and that Muhammad improved the
situation by outlawing infanticide. Yet Muslims also maintain that there was
unbridled polygamy in Arabia, in which men would sometimes marry hundreds of
women; ... If everyone was murdering their daughters, how could there possibly have
been so many women to marry? If infanticide was common, women would have

4
Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Riyadh: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth, 1960), 34.
5
All Qur’anic citations are from the Yusuf Ali translation unless otherwise stated.

5
 been a rare commodity. But there were plenty of women to go around, so infanticide
couldn’t have been very common.6

One other positive remark that can be made concerning the Islamic view of women is their

emphasis on modest attire. Women are enjoined to dress modestly. This includes the wearing of

the hijab, which is mandated from women from the age of puberty onward (although some girls

are pressured to wear it even before then). Some sects and schools go even further than the hijab

and prescribe even less revealing head coverings, such as the niqab, abaya and burqa. This

emphasis on head coverings is particularly emphasized in one ayah where it says:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their
modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must
ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and
not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's
fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their
sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male
servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of
sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their
hidden ornaments (Sura 24:31).

Another ayah states that Muslim women “should cast their outer garments over their persons

(when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested”

(Sura 33:59). Thus, the head coverings are said to have two main purposes: to protect against

molestation, and so that they may be identified as Muslims. Also, it should be noted that these

ayat are ambiguous on the kind of garments used, and do not specify exactly how much covering

is mandated. This particular aspect of the Islamic dress code is treated more explicitly in the

ahadith. One particular hadith reports this:

6
David Wood, “Banish Them to Their Beds and Scourge Them!,” Answering Islam, http://www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm (Accessed April 8, 2011).

6
 Narrated by 'A'ishah, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon
the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his
attention from her. He said: “O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of
menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and
this, and he pointed to her face and hands” (Sunan abu Dawud 27:4092).7

An interesting note is made by Tor Andrae, who states that the practice of putting a veil on

women was not an original idea by Muhammad, but rather, “this custom was later adopted from

Persian and Syrian Christians.”8 This provides strong evidence that the Islamic ideal of modesty

is actually borrowed from the Bible (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1-16 and 2 Tim. 2:9-10).

However, as in most cases, the Biblical idea has been twisted in Islam. Rather than simply

being a symbol of chastity, the head coverings have sometimes been treated as an end in itself. A

famous example of this in recent times was an incident wherein a building with 800 schoolgirls

caught fire in Mecca. As the schoolgirls attempted to escape the burning building, Saudi police

arrived on the scene and forced them to remain inside the building because they did were not

wearing their abayas (black robes prescribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The police beat

any girls who tried to get out of the school and stopped men who tried to help them on the

grounds that it was sinful for them to approach the girls. Furthermore, the school watchman even

refused to open the gates to let the girls out. As a result of this, 15 of the girls were killed, most

of whom were crushed to death in a stampede as the girls attempted to escape from the blaze.9

Aside from this incident, there has also been some backlash against the more restrictive

forms of head covering in western countries due to security risks. As a result of this, France

(which currently has the highest Muslim population in Europe) has recently enacted the law

7
All hadith citations are from “The Hadith Database,” International Islamic University of Malaysia,
http://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith/ (Accessed April 10, 2011).
8
Tor Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and His Faith, translated by Theophil Menzel (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2000),
78.
9
“Saudi police ‘stopped’ fire rescue.” BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm (Accessed April 10,
2011).

7
banning the niqab and burqa , which is punishable by a fine of €150.10 In addition, it should be

noted that “not all practicing Muslim women wear the scarf and not all of them are of the

opinion that this is indispensable,”11 and that there is a move among many modern Muslim

women to discard the head coverings altogether, under the belief that these head coverings were

only useful for the early period of Islamic history, but is no longer applicable to them in modern

times. Understandably, this viewpoint has not been met with much approval in more

conservative Muslim circles.12 Finally, in a recent article for Christianity Today, Christine

Schirrmacher has suggested that Christians should not prevent Muslim women from being

veiled, but that our focus must be on the politicized Islam which seeks to implement Shari’a in

western countries and is responsible for promoting the niqab and/or burqa.13

Thus, it may be admitted that some benefits to women have come about as a result of

Islam, these benefits are not without their qualifiers. Also, the question arises on whether these

benefits outweigh any of the negative aspects of Islam’s teachings on women. Thus, it is

necessary to look at the rest of these teachings in order to attain an accurate understanding of the

issues involved and arrive at a well-informed decision concerning whether the overall outlook on

women in Islam is positive or negative.

10
CNN Wire Staff, “France's Burqa Ban in Effect Next Month “ CNN World. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-
04/world/france.burqa.ban_1_burqa-ban-full-face-veil?_s=PM:WORLD (Accessed April 10, 2011).
11
Christine Schirrmacher, Islam and Society (Richmond, BC: World Evangelical Alliance, 2008), 89.
12
Bruce A. McDowell and Anees Zaka, Muslims and Christians at the Table: Promoting Biblical Understanding
Among North American Muslims (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1999), 51.
13
Christine Schirrmacher, “Christians Should Support Women First,” Christianity Today,
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/17.58.html (Accessed April 11, 2011).

8
 ON ISLAMIC MARRIAGE

Nika’ah (Islamic marriage) is a vital part of the Muslim’s life. This marriage is defined as “a

legal commitment sanctioned by God and acknowledged by society.” 14 This definition, of course,

is not far from the original Biblical concept of the man and woman uniting to become one flesh

(cf. Gen. 2:24). From its inception, Islam has vigorously rejected the concept of monasticism,

and under Shari’a, “it is undesirable [though not impermissible] for a marriageable person to

remain single, even when the intention is to be free to concentrate on prayers and on similar

religious ordinances.”15 In the law books of most Islamic countries, the minimum age for

marriage is usually 14 to 16 years old for girls and 16 to 18 years old for boys, although this

minimum age is usually circumvented in rural areas through the falsification of birthdates. 16 To

this is added that classical Islamic law “demands that girls and boys marry soon after puberty,

when they become aware of their sexual appetites. Marriage allows them to enjoy sex within a

legally and socially accepted framework.”17

That being said, however, while there may be some surface-level agreement between

Christian and Muslim teachings on marriage, there are many glaring differences between the two

views. For one thing, there are references in both the Qur’an and ahadith that indicate that

marriage is for the enjoyment of the man. In Sura 2:223, it is written: “Your wives are as a tilth

unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Concerning this verse, it is written in the

tafsir (commentary) by Al-Jalalayn: “Your women are a tillage for you, that is, the place where

you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the

14
Muhammad Abdul-Rauf, Ph.D., The Islamic View of Women and the Family (New York, NY: Robert Speller &
Sons, 1977), 39.
15
Ibid., 43.
16
Christine Schirrmacher, “Women in Islam,” World Evangelical Alliance,
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/resources/source.htm?id=66 (Accessed April 8, 2011), 1-2.
17
Mona Siddiqui, How to Read the Qur'an (London: Granta, 2007), 71.

9
front part, as, in whichever way, you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from

the front or the back.”18 Ibn Abbas is more explicit in his commentary where he writes: “[T]he

vulvas of your wives are plantations for your offspring (so go to your tilth) your plantations (as

ye will) as you please, from behind or front as long as the penetration is in the pudendum.” 19 The

idea of the wife being obligated to provide pleasure for her husband is reinforced by a hadith

wherein Muhammad is reported as saying: “If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she

refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning” (Sahih al Bukhari

7:62:121, cf. no. 122). What is most glaring about this teaching is the fact that the woman’s

enjoyment and pleasure is not at all taken into consideration.

And then there is the Islamic teaching on Polygamy. Sura 4:3 states: “If you fear that you

shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or

four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a

captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing

injustice.” Commentators on this ayah have suggested that it was actually intended to limit the

number of wives that the Muslim men may have. Ibn Abbas comments that this ayah was

revealed “because they used to marry as many women as they liked, as many as nine or ten.

Qays Ibn al-Harth for example had eight wives. Allah forbade them from doing so and prohibited

them from marrying more than four wives”20 This, of course, has not prevented the rapid spread

of polygamy even amongst Muslims living in the west. In fact, this practice has become so

pervasive that by 2004, the British government had begun considering recognizing polygamist

marriages for tax purposes.21

18
All Tafsir citations are from Al Tafsir, http://www.altafsir.com (Accessed April 11, 2011).
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Washington DC: Regnery, 2005),
73.

10
 The limit of four wives, of course, applies only to rank and file Muslim men. It is a well

known fact that Muhammad went beyond this and married eleven wives. Originally, he was only

married to Khadijah, but married the other ten wives after her death around A.D. 620.22 Of

particular interest is his seventh wife, Zainab bint Jahsh. She was originally married to

Muhammad’s adopted son, Zaid bin Haritha, but was later divorced after Muhammad fell in love

with her. He then married her, and then Sura al Ahzab was “revealed” in order to justify this

divorce and remarriage. Of particular interest is 30:50, which reads:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their
dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom
Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and
daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with you;
and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes
to wed her;- this only for you, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We
have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands
possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee.

With the revelation of this ayah, the rules were bent in Muhammad’s favour, such that Aisha

(Muhammad’s second wife, whom he married when she was only six years old and

consummated marriage with when she was only nine, cf. Sahih al Bukhari 7:62:64, 88)

reportedly stated: “O Allah's Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you”

(Sahih al Bukhari 7:62:48).

Of further note is a phrase which appears in both Suras 4:3 and 33:50, and that is the

phrase, “those whom your right hands possess.” This phrase also appears in Sura 4:24, which

states: “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands

possess.” The reference is to female captives that were taken in battle. This is made more explicit

22
Sam Shamoun, “Muhammad’s Multiplicity of Marriages,” Answering Islam, http://www.answering-
islam.org/Shamoun/mhd_marriages.htm (Acessed April 11, 2011).

11
in various ahadith which make reference to the historical background behind this ayah. One such

hadith reads:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger sent an
army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome
them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to
refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being
polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already
married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i.e. they were lawful
for them when their 'Idda period came to an end) (Sahih Muslim 8:3432, cf. Sunan
abu Dawud 5:2150).

In a related hadith, it is mentioned that some of these Muslims asked Muhammad: “Oh Allah's

messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is

your opinion about coitus interruptus?” To this, he replied: “Do you really do that? It is better

for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into

existence” (Sahih al Bukhari 3:34:432). Two facts emerge from these ahadith: 1) The Muslims

are permitted to have sexual intercourse with their captives even while their husbands were still

alive without regard for whether or not they would become pregnant, and 2) the fact that they

mentioned that they were interested in the captives’ prices indicates that if these captives did not

become pregnant, they would be sold rather than kept by their captors.

And then there is the Islamic teaching on divorce. While divorce is not necessarily an

approved act in Islam, it is to be noted that there are much less restrictions on divorce in the

Qur’an and Sunnah than there are in either the Old or New Testaments. The only requirement is

for the man to say “I divorce you!” to her wife three times. After this, however, he is not allowed

to take her back until she has been married and divorced to another man. This practice of

forbidding remarriage unless the woman has first been divorced by another man was probably

first developed as a means of preventing impulsive divorces that are pronounced in annoyance,

12
intoxication or jest. Also, although divorce is primarily initiated by the husband, in recent

decades various Islamic countries have begun to permit the wife obtaining a divorce, although in

these cases the woman must go through a formal trial, as it is not nearly as easy for a wife to

divorce her husband as it is for the reverse.23

Corollary to this practice of granting easy divorce is the controversial practice of arranging

temporary marriages for the purpose of sexual satisfaction, which are then dissolved after a short

period of time (usually no more than three days). This practice is known as mut’a. This practice

was prescribed during the early days of Islam in order to provide sexual release for warriors who

were in the battlefield away from their wives. This is described in the following hadith:

Narrated by Jabir bin 'Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa': While we were in an
army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a
(marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa' said: Allah's Apostle's said, “If a man and
a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights,
and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do
so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu
Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: ‘Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut'a
marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful)” (Sahih al Bukhari 7:62:52).

Although Sunni Muslims state on the basis of the last part of this hadith (as well as other ahadith

also found in Sahih al Bukhari) that the practice of mut’a has been abrogated, Shi’ite Muslims

disagree and believe that this practice is still valid today. Thus, temporary wives have been

known to gather in Shi’ite holy cities, where they avail themselves to lonely seminarians who are

seeking companionship.24 Even if it is true that Muhammad abrogated this practice, it is quite a

glaring fact that he ever allowed it in the first place, since, when one really thinks about it, this

practice practically amounts to little more than religiously sanctioned prostitution.

23
Christine Schirrmacher, “Women in Islam,” World Evangelical Alliance, 5-6.
24
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, 74.

13
 Finally, what is quite possibly the most contentious marital practice that in Islam is that of

wife beating. This practice is found primarily in one ayah of the Qur’an, which reads:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one
more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means.
Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's)
absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you
fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their
beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against
them Means (of annoyance) (Sura 4:34).

Yusuf Ali (whose translation has been quoted throughout this article) attempts to evade the force

of this verse by inserting the word “lightly” in brackets. Other Muslim apologists have also tried

to explain away the force of this ayah. Suhail Kapoor, for example, explains the verse this way:

The word “beating” is used in this verse, but it does not mean “physical abuse”. The
prophet explained it “dharban ghayra mubarrih” which means “a light tap that leaves
no mark”. He further said that the face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of
the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush. It is also
important to note that even this “light strike” mentioned in the verse is not to be used
to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of
some serious moral misconduct. Such a measure is more accurately described as a
gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure
than a punitive one.25

There are both exegetical and historical problems with this explanation, however. First of all,

there is a notable progression in the punishments administered. First, admonish, then refuse to

share beds with, then beat. If the “beating” here is just a “gentle tap,” then it would make no

sense why it is saved for last. Furthermore, Schirrmacher notes: “Whoever examines the exact

wording of the Koran verse could even say that the man not only has the right, but even the duty

to punish, for Sura 4:34 is formulated as a command to husbands: ‘Beat them!’” 26 For these

25
Suhail Kapoor, Islam, 28.
26
Christine Schirrmacher, Islam and Society, 99.

14
reasons the use of the word “beat” does not do justice to the text, and other translators (such as

M. M. Pickthall) have chosen to use the much stronger word “scourge.”

Second of all, this explanation runs counter to the example that is set by Muhammad and

his companions. There is at least one recorded instance in a hadith which mentions Muhammad

hitting Aisha, during which Aisha is reported as saying, “He struck me on the chest which caused

me pain” (Sahih Muslim 4:2127). In other narrations which mention Aisha being beaten by her

father, Abu Bakr, it is mentioned that she is beaten for such things as “detain[ing] the people

because of [her] necklace” (Sahih al Bukhari 8:82:828), as well as “ask[ing] Allah’s Messenger

which he does not possess [i.e. money]” (Sahih Muslim 9:3506). This surely flies in the face of

Kapoor’s assertion that the beating of the woman is reserved only for “serious moral

misconduct.”

Even more telling are the reports of the extent to which the women were beaten, as well as

how Muhammad reacts to these reports. In one hadith, it is mentioned that a badly beaten woman

came to Aisha seeking assistance. As the narration goes:

Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and
showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to
support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen
any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener
than her clothes!” (Sahih al Bukhari 7:72:715).

The statement by Aisha indicates that not even the pagan Arabs beat their women with such

force, since no woman had ever suffered as much as the Muslim women. A hadith narrated by

Abdullah ibn abu Dhubab records that since the women have become emboldened and were

complaining against their husbands, Muhammad gave the husbands permission to beat them. The

next hadith states that he then went on to say that “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his

wife.” (Sunan abu Dawud 5:2141, 2142). This set the pace for many similar atrocities, such as

15
the story of Aisha Bibi that was mentioned in the beginning of this article. All of these facts fly

in the face of Kapoor’s assertion that Islam “has given the woman rights and privileges, the likes

of which she has never enjoyed under other religious or constitutional systems.”27

27
Suhail Kapoor, Islam, 22.

16
 THE SOCIAL, INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL VIEWS ON WOMEN

Aside from the Islamic view of marriage (which upon examination is already sufficient to show

that Islam is far from egalitarian in its treatment of women), the socio-economic, intellectual and

spiritual views on women must also be considered. One of the great propaganda tricks used by

Muslim apologists to convince westerners (especially female westerners) to convert to Islam is to

claim that Islam’s teachings on the status of women are quite revolutionary by modern standards.

A notable proponent of this is the famous Islamic apologist Zakir Naik, who has delivered a

lecture on this topic which is now published in book format, entitled, Rights of Women in Islam:

Modern or Outdated?, and is easily available in Islamic bookstores across the United States and

Canada. In this lecture, Naik makes a lot of claims which are poorly supported, if there is any

support for them at all. He states, for example, that Islam “gave economical rights to the women

1,300 before the West. An adult Muslim woman can own, dispose or disown any of her property

without consulting ay one, irrespective of whether she is married or single” 28 Interestingly

enough, Naik does not provide any evidence from the Qur’an or the Sunnah in support of this

claim; he merely asserts it. Further on, he goes on to argue:

Islam gave the right to the women to inherit, centuries ago. If you read the Qur’an, in
several verses in Surah Nisa, in Surah Baqarah and in Surah Maidah, it is mentioned
that a woman irrespective of whether she is a wife or a mother or a sister or a
daughter, she has a right to inherit, and it has been fixed by Allah (SWT) in the
Qur’an.29

Note that Naik merely gives the Suras without giving the exact ayat in question. Suras 2, 3 and 4

are among the longest in the Qur’an, which would make looking for the relevant ayat somewhat

difficult unless one already knew where to look. Here is the reason why: When one looks at the

relevant Qur’anic references, one realizes that the Qur’an actually states that daughters have only

28
Zakir Naik, Rights of Women in Islam: Modern or Outdated? (New Delhi: Adam, 2010), 10.
29
Ibid., 13.

17
half the inheritance rights of sons. Sura 4:11 states: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your

Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters,

two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.” If

Naik’s audience had known about this ayah, it would have totally nullified his point, hence why

he omits quoting it. And besides, women’s inheritance isn’t new to the Qur’an, since the Old

Testament had already addressed this issue and taken care of it thousands of years earlier (cf.

Num. 27:1-11, 36:1-9, Job 42:15, etc.).

Further on, Naik argues that Islam “gave the right to a woman to be a witness 14 centuries

ago.”30 What he fails to tell his audience is that the testimony of a woman is worth half of a man

according to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Sura 2:282 states, “get two witnesses, out of your own

men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses,

so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” Even more glaring than this is the fact that

Muhammad used the fact that women’s testimony is worth half of a man as evidence that there is

a deficiency in the intelligence of women (Sahih al Bukhari 1:6:301). In fact, this has become a

big problem in countries where Shari’a is enforced as the law of the land. As Spencer notes, “if a

woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male

witnesses can't be found, the victim's charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery.” 31 This is

why there are countless cases of wrongful imprisonment among women in countries such as

Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, etc., on charges of adultery.32

Furthermore, Naik also argues for the spiritual equality of women on the basis of the fact

that they are both created by Allah (cf. Suras 4:1, 16:72 and 42:11). He also argues that men and

women are both equal inheritors of paradise, on the basis of Sura 4:124, which states: “If any do

30
Ibid., 26.
31
Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, 76.
32
For more information on this, see the article “Rape, Zina and Incest” in Appendix One.

18
deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not

the least injustice will be done to them.”33 What Naik fails to mention is that according to

Muhammad himself, the number of men and women in paradise will be grossly disproportionate.

In a hadith narrated by Imran bin Husain, it is reported that Muhammad stated that “Amongst the

inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority” (Sahih Muslim 36:6600). Another hadith

expands upon this, giving reasons on why most women will end up in hellfire rather than jannah:

Narrated by Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to
offer the prayer) of 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and
said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-
fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?” He replied,
“You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone
more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could
be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah's Apostle! What is
deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, "Is not the evidence of two
women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said,
“This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray
nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is
the deficiency in her religion” (Sahih al Bukhari, 1:6:301).

Notice that three reasons are given as to why most women end up in hellfire: 1) They are

ungrateful to their husbands, 2) they are deficient in intelligence, and 3) they are deficient in

religion. This narration is repeated numerous times in other ahadith (cf. Sahih al Bukhari 1:2:28,

7:62:124 and Sahih Muslim 1:142). Ironically, Naik cites the fact that women cannot perform

salat during their menses as evidence that Islam gives greater concessions to them, 34 even though

Muhammad quite clearly states that this is evidence that they are “deficient in religion.”

Finally, there is the ritual impurity of women. An observer of Muslims performing salat in

groups will probably notice that women cannot pray in front of men. Muslims will allege that

33
Zakir Naik, Rights of Women in Islam, 5-7.
34
Ibid., 9.

19
this is for modesty’s sake, so that men cannot be distracted by the prostrating women. However,

the truth is that this practice has little (if anything) to do with modesty. The fact is that women

cancel out men’s prayers simply by passing in front of them, which is why they cannot be in

front. This is demonstrated in a hadith narrated by Aisha wherein she states: “The things which

annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, ‘Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey

and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).’” Upon hearing this, Aisha was

reportedly so shocked that to those from whom she heard this she exclaimed: “You have made us

(i.e. women) dogs!” (Sahih al Bukhari 1:9:490, cf. Sahih Muslim 4:1034). Yet this narration is

well attested in the most reliable hadith collections. Now, why would women’s spiritual status be

reduced to the level of donkeys and dogs in this manner? Allah knows.

20
 WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES IN CONTRAST

When one turns to the Bible to see what it has to say regarding the status of women, one will find

that the Christian view of women is as different from the Islamic view as day is from night.

Various texts will be explored to see their relation to the status of women in Christianity.

Undoubtedly, the most important text on this is the creation account in Gen. 1-3. Of

particular important is Gen. 1:27: “So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of

God He created them; male and female He created them.” It is important to note that it is the fact

that human beings are God’s image bearers that gives them inherent dignity and worth in the

Biblical worldview, since it renders them as the crown of God’s creation. It is equally important

to note that this divine image is stamped upon both male and female. Although the term “man” (

‫ )אדם‬is used, Peter Gentry notes in an article from the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology that

this term is “a generic term for mankind as both male and female, is created as the image of

God.”35 He goes on to note that according to this verse, “[the] creation of mankind entails male

and female.”36 These facts guarantee that men and women are both equally deserving of the

privileges and benefits of being God’s image-bearers.

Immediately after this comes verse 28, where it states that “God blessed them and said to

them, “Be fruitful and increase in number.” It is important to connect v. 28 with v. 27 because as

Gentry points out, “duality of gender is the basis for being fruitful.” 37 In other words, God

created both sexes so that their union may be the basis of procreation.

Then there is the second chapter, where God creates Eve out of Adam’s side. Adam

responds by saying: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called

35
Peter J. Gentry, “Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image,” Southern Baptist Journal of
Theology 12/1 (Spring 2008): 23.
36
Ibid., 25.
37
Ibid., 26.

21
‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Gen. 2:23). This becomes the basis for male headship

in the Bible. What this means is that man is the spiritual head over woman (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3), yet

remains ontologically equal with him and must not subjugate her. In fact, subjugation of women

is one of the effects of the curse of the fall, as seen where God says “You will want to control

your husband, but he will dominate you” (Gen. 3:16, NET). On this, Raymond Ortlund writes:

“The antithesis to male headship is male domination. By male domination I mean the assertion

of the man’s will over the woman’s will, heedless of her spiritual equality, her rights and her

value.”38 The Bible asserts male headship, but never male domination, because the latter was

never meant to be part of the original created order. This position is known as

Complementarianism: The view that men and women are ontologically equal by virtue of their

both being image-bearers, yet man is spiritual head over woman, and both genders have distinct

non-overlapping roles to fulfill. To again quote Ortlund: “Man was created as royalty in God’s

world, male and female alike bearing the divine glory equally.”39

The next verse goes on to state: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is

united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This then becomes the basis of

marriage in the Bible. Note that it is one man and one woman, making monogamy the norm in

the created order. True, God did permit polygamy during Old Testament times, but this was by

way of concession, rather than by law, and even the Law of Moses contained hints at the idea

that having more than one wife was less than ideal (cf. Deut. 17:17, where it is said that the king

“must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray”).

38
Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. Wayne Grudem and John Piper (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
1991), 95.
39
Ibid.,97.

22
 At this point, it is necessary to refute an attack made by Naik upon the creation account’s

view of women. He cites Gen. 3:16, and then states that “only Eve (May peace be upon her) is

held responsible for the downfall of humanity. And according to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’,

because of Eve (May peace be upon her) the whole of humanity is born in sin.” 40 Naik ignores

the fact that Adam is also cursed for his disobedience. In fact, while only one verse is spent

detailing Eve’s punishment, three verses are spent on Adam’s punishment (Gen. 3:17-19). Also,

Rom. 5:12-19 makes it clear that it is Adam’s sin that is imputed to humanity, not Eve’s, because

it is Adam and not Eve who is our federal head. Finally, remember that Jesus (Who Christians

and Muslims agree upon to be sinless) was born of a virgin. If original sin comes through the

woman, then why doesn’t Christ get it from His mother? This ought to be sufficient evidence to

refute the claim that only woman is responsible for the fall.

Another important verse is Gal. 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor

free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Note that this does not

mean that all gender distinctions are eradicated (remember Complementarianism), but that the

ontological and social equality of men and women is reaffirmed and restored under Christ. This

places Christian teaching far ahead of both Jewish and Gentile attitudes towards women at the

time, as explained in comment on this verse made in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

It is hard to imagine how badly women were treated in antiquity, even in Judaism,
and how difficult it is to find any statement about the equality of the sexes, however
weak, in any ancient texts except those of Christianity. The Jew prayed, “I thank God
that thou hast not made me a woman” (common morning prayer). Josephus wrote,
“Woman is inferior to man in every way” (Contra Apion, 2:24). The Gentile world
had similar expressions. But Paul reverses this. Indeed, in this statement we have one
factor in the gradual elevation and honouring of women that has been known in
Christian lands.

40
Zakir Naik, Rights of Women in Islam, 7.

23
Finally, there are the instructions on marriage as presented in the New Testament. First is the fact

that Jesus completely contradicts the Islamic practice of easy divorce and remarriage in His

statement that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim

of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32, cf. Luke

16:18). This is reaffirmed by Paul, who writes: “A wife must not separate from her husband. But

if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband

must not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Granted, he also states that an unbeliever who

wishes to leave their believing spouse is under no obligation to follow this rule, but he also

explicitly states that the believing spouse must not initiate divorce and must keep the unbelieving

spouse if they choose to stay (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-16).

Then there is the command for husbands and wives to fulfill their marital duties to one

another. On this, Paul writes:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her
husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her
husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body
but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent
and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together
again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor.
7:3-5).

On the surface, this sounds similar to the Islamic teaching on nika’ah that was previously

outlined. However, there is a vital difference: Whereas Islam stresses the woman’s duty to fulfill

her husband’s sexual needs, Christianity stresses the need for husband and wife to fulfill each

other’s needs. Unlike Islam, marital relations must have the mutual consent of both the husband

and the wife, and there is no curse upon the wife if she does not sleep with her husband.

Finally, there are the final instructions that Paul gives on mutual submission between

wives and husbands in Eph. 5:21-33. In v. 22, wives are exhorted to submit to their husbands in

24
the same way that they submit to the Lord. Male headship is reasserted in v. 23, then in v. 24,

wives are instructed to “submit to their husbands in everything.”41

Connected to this is the love that husbands are commanded to give their wives. V. 25 states

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This is

repeated in v. 28: “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He

who loves his wife loves himself.” Just as submission of the wife to the husband must be

patterned after the Church’s submission to Christ, so the husband’s love towards his wife must be

patterned after Christ’s love for His Church.

This entails two things. First, the husband must be willing to sacrifice everything, even his

life if necessary, for the sake of his wife (cf. John 15:13). Second, since Christ loved His Church

unconditionally, the husband must love his wife unconditionally as well, even if she is unfaithful

or disobedient to him. This is in stark contrast to Islamic teaching, where the husband’s love is

dependent upon the woman’s submission. This is best illustrated in the Shari’a manual Umdat as

Salik (Reliance of the Traveller). In this manual, it is stated:

The husband is only obliged to support his wife when she gives herself to him or
offers to, meaning she allows him full enjoyment of her person and does not refuse
him sex at any time of the night or day. She is not entitled to support from her
husband when:
(1) she is rebellious (nashiz, def: m10.12(N:)) (O: meaning when she does
not obey him even if for a moment;
(2) she travels without his permission, or with his permission but for one of
her own needs;
(3) she assumes ihram for hajj of `umra (def: j3);

41
A quick word on this verse: A common exegetical mistake is to take words such as “all” or “everything” and
take them as absolutes. No serious interpreter would suggest that Paul has it in mind that wives must follow their
husbands even when doing so would lead to sinful acts. What he simply means is that wives must strive to be
respectful and obedient to their husbands as much as possible, higher priority commands notwithstanding.

25
 (4) or when she performs a voluntary fast without her husband's permission
(O: though if he allows her to fast and does not ask her to break it, he must provide
her support) (Umdat as Salik m11.9)42

No such conditions are placed upon the love and provision that a Christian husband is enjoined

to provide for his wife. He must love her, protect her and provide for her needs regardless of her

moral conduct.

Paul ties this relationship between husband and wife back to Creation; in v. 31 he reiterates

Gen. 2:24, stating: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his

wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Thus the prime importance of Creation as the norm for

humanity is reasserted with regards to marriage. Finally, in v. 33, he sums up the conclusion of

the matter: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife

must respect her husband.”

All citations of Umdat as Salik are from Ahmad Ibn Naqib, “Reliance of the Traveller and Tools for the
42

Worshipper,” Shafi’i Fiqh, http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf (Accessed April 14, 2011).

26
 CONCLUSION

Having presented the data from both Christian and Muslim sources on the respective religions’

views on women, it is quite clear that the Christian teaching is more profound and dignified than

what can be found in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Contra the claims of Muslims apologists, it is

Christianity, rather than Islam, that promotes the status of women and dignifies them. Women are

the fellow image-bearers of men, and both genders are exhorted to submit to one another (albeit

not in the exact same way).

By contrast, we see that wherever the Islamic ummah is present, there is a noticeable

decline in the status of women. Shari’a does not afford women the same kinds of rights and

privileges that are taken for granted in most civilized nations. For example, according to Shafi’i

jurisprudence, women are only allowed to leave their homes if their husbands permit them, and

even then only for certain specified reasons (Umdat as Salik m10.3). It is further stated that a

husband “may forbid his wife to leave the home ... But if one of her relatives dies, it is preferable

[i.e. not mandatory] to let her leave to visit them.” (Umdat as Salik m10.4). Why? Because

Muhammad said so. His words and actions constitute the Sunnah, and every Muslim is obligated

to follow the example that he sets: “He who obeys the Apostle, obeys Allah” (Sura 4:80),

regardless of whether any sane person may judge his actions to be morally justifiable or not.

How are Christians to respond to this? The best thing to do is to continue to expose the

teachings of Islam and show how it degrades and dehumanizes the female gender. After this, the

Biblical alternative must be presented as the solution to the problem of violations of women’s

rights. Muslim women who live in western countries and enjoy western privileges must realize

that they only enjoy the privileges they have because they live in a land that has been influenced

by Judaeo-Christian moral values. Christians everywhere must minister to Muslim women to

bring them out of the bondage of the Islamic ummah and into the freedom and salvation that only

the Lord Jesus can offer: “If the Son sets [them] free, [they] are free indeed” (John 8:36)
27
 APPENDIX ONE

Rape, Zina and Incest

Sisters in Islam shares the concern expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister that the
absence of a definition on rape in syariah law has led to victims of rape being
charged for zina (illicit sex).
Throughout the history of Islam, differing human interpretations and
understanding of the word of God had always existed. We as a society must debate
and discuss in a rational and informed manner which interpretation will serve the
best interest of our multi-ethnic, multi-religious, industrialising and modernising
society.
In Pakistan, it is reported that three out of four women in prison under its
Hudud laws, are rape victims. Because rape is equated with zina under Hudud law,
rape victims are required to produce four pious male witnesses. It is of course nearly
impossible for the rape victims to produce the four male witnesses required to prove
their allegation. Therefore their police report of rape was taken as a confession of
illicit sex on their part and they were duly found guilty.
In the real world, rape is unlikely to occur in the open, such that four pious
males can observe the act of penetration. If they actually did witness such an act, and
have not sought to prevent it, then technically they are abettors to the crime. In
reality, unless the rapist confesses to the crime, women can never prove rape at all if
rape is placed under syariah jurisdiction.
It is because of such gross injustice and abuse of the law that Sisters in Islam
objected to several provisions which discriminated against women in the Hudud
Enactment of Kelantan in 1993. The enforcement of such laws leaves rape victims
who are unable to provide four male eye witnesses liable to prosecution for illicit
sex.
In Malaysia, rape is a crime under the Penal Code. There is therefore no
necessity for a new crime of rape under the Syariah criminal offences legislation as
this would lead to a further conflict of jurisdiction between civil and syariah law. All
citizens, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, who commit the crime of rape, which
includes incest, should be prosecuted under the Penal Code. According to the Federal
Constitution crime is a federal matter and effort must be made to minimise areas of
overlapping of jurisdiction between civil and syariah law which have already led to

28
 numerous cases of conflict that must be addressed by the authorities in consultation
with NGOs.
We feel there are adequate provisions in the Penal Code to deal with the
Deputy Prime Minister's concern of sexual abuse at home. Even though the crime of
incest is not defined in the Penal Code, the perpetrator could be charged for rape and
the judge should take into consideration the aggravating circumstances of a family
relationship and impose a higher sentence on the rapist.
Incest, however, is a specific crime under the Syariah Criminal Code. In an
unprecedented case in Kelantan recently, a 17-year-old daughter was charged for
incest with her father under the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code. Sisters in Islam
views this development with deep concern.
That the Syariah prosecutors regarded the girl as a willing partner in the
commission of the crime and therefore an offender, rather than a victim, is totally
against the grain of justice. The girl is a juvenile under the authority and control of
her father. The failure of the Syariah judicial officers to understand the dynamics of
power relationship led to the prosecution of a daughter, a victim of sexual abuse by
the father, as if she was an equal perpetrator and willing partner in the crime.
In this case, the cause of justice would have better been served if the father was
charged with rape under the Penal Code where he is liable to imprisonment for not
less than five years and not more than 20 years. This sentencing properly reflects the
gravity of the crime committed and society's abhorrence of such a crime. However,
under the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code, the person who commits incest is liable
only to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years, or both.
In the Kelantan case, society would regard the daughter as the victim, not the
offender. She is regarded as a minor under civil law and should have been given the
professional care and support she so necessarily needed to help her overcome the
trauma of an incestuous relationship. She should not have been treated as a criminal.
Sisters in Islam urges the Government to form a committee which includes
women's groups and other NGOs to review the Syariah Criminal Law and its many
provisions which conflict or overlap with civil law, which conflict with constitutional
provisions on fundamental liberties and which discriminate against women and
marginalised communities.43

43
“Rape, Zina and Incest,” Muslim Access,
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/rape_zina_in_islam.asp (Accessed April 13, 2011).

29
 APPENDIX TWO

Glossary of Islamic Terms used

For the benefit of those who may not be well acquainted with Islamic terminology, this glossary

is provided at the back of McDowell and Zaka’s Muslims and Christians at the Table in order to

explain what specific Islamic terms that are used in this essay mean. The author of this article

does not necessarily endorse every aspect of every term that is mentioned here. For example, it is

not true that Islam means “peace,” even though it is claimed that the words Islam and salam

(which does mean ”peace”) come from the same root. Also, terms that are not mentioned or used

in the paper are omitted from this list.

abu—“father of.”

ayah (pl., ayat)—verse of the Qur’an.

Hadith—the sayings, actions, and approvals of the prophet Muhammad as recorded

in tradition, having been passed on by his companions and later Muslim
authorities.

hijab—scarf worn by Muslim women over their head.

islam—submitting to the will of Allah; “peace.”

Qur’an (or Koran)—the holy book revealed by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad.

salat—ritual prostration in prayer five times each day; the second of the five pillars
of Islam.

Shari’a—the constitution of the Islamic community, the divine will applied to every
situation in life. It is derived from the Qur’an the Hadith, and the Sunnah of the
prophet Muhammad, general consensus, and qiyas (analogy).

30
 Shi’ite (or Shi’a)—the branch of Islam that follows the leadership of ‘Ali, the son-in-
law of Muhammad, and of the twelve imams descended from him. Most people
in Iran and many people in Iraq and Lebanon are Shi’ite.

Sunnah—the practice or actions of the prophet Muhammad as recorded in tradition,

which are a model to be followed. This includes every detail of Muhammad’s
life, from the direction in which he slept to how he brushed his teeth. So
Sunnah is the way of faith and conduct as followed by the Islamic community.

Sunni—the major orthodox branch of Islam, which follows the leadership of the
caliphs after Muhammad’s death.

Surah—a chapter of the Qur’an; there are 114 of them.

ummah—the worldwide Muslim community or the community of Islamic scholars.44

44
Bruce A. McDowell and Anees Zaka, Muslims and Christians at the Table, 297-303.

31
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abawi, Atifa. “Afghan Woman Whose Nose, Ears Cut Off travels to U.S.” CNN World.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/afghanistan.mutilated.girl.update/index.
html (Accessed April 8, 2011).

Abdul-Rauf, Muhammad, Ph.D. The Islamic View of Women and the Family. New York, NY:
Robert Speller & Sons, 1977.

Al Tafsir. http://www.altafsir.com (Accessed April 11, 2011).

Andrae, Tor. Mohammed: The Man and His Faith. Translated by Theophil Menzel. Mineola, NY:
Dover, 2000.

CNN Wire Staff. “France's Burqa Ban in Effect Next Month” CNN World.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-04/world/france.burqa.ban_1_burqa-ban-full-face-veil?
_s=PM:WORLD (Accessed April 10, 2011).

Garland, David E. and Tremper Longman III. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10 –
Romans-Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976.

Gentry, Peter J. “Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image.” Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 12/1 (Spring 2008): 16-42.

“The Hadith Database.” International Islamic University of Malaysia.

http://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith/ (Accessed April 10, 2011).

Ibn Naqib, Ahmad. “Reliance of the Traveller and Tools for the Worshipper.” Shafi’i Fiqh.
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf (Accessed April 14, 2011).

Kapoor, Suhail. Islam: From Darkness to Light. Jeddah: Al-Amal, 2008.

Mawdudi, Abul A’la. Human Rights in Islam. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1990.

__________. Towards Understanding Islam. Riyadh: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth,
1960.

32
McDowell, Bruce A., and Anees Zaka. Muslims and Christians at the Table: Promoting Biblical
Understanding Among North American Muslims. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1999.

Naik, Zakir. Rights of Women in Islam: Modern or Outdated? New Delhi: Adam, 2010.

Ortlund, Raymond C., Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship.” in Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. Wayne Grudem and
John Piper. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

“Rape, Zina and Incest.” Muslim Access.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/rape_zina_in_islam.asp (Accessed April
13, 2011).

“Saudi police ‘stopped’ fire rescue.” BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

(Accessed April 10, 2011).

Schirrmacher, Christine. “Christians Should Support Women First.” Christianity Today.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/17.58.html (Accessed April 8, 2011).

__________. Islam and Society. Richmond, BC: World Evangelical Alliance, 2008.

__________. “Women in Islam.” World Evangelical Alliance.

http://www.worldevangelicals.org/resources/source.htm?id=66 (Accessed April 8, 2011).

Shamoun, Sam. "Muhammad’s Multiplicity of Marriages." Answering Islam.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mhd_marriages.htm (Acessed April 11, 2011).

Siddiqui, Mona. How to Read the Qur'an. London: Granta, 2007.

Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. Washington DC:
Regnery, 2005.

Wood, David. “Banish Them to Their Beds and Scourge Them!” Answering Islam.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm (Accessed April 8, 2011).

33