Men, Women, and the Perils of Constructionism

It seems these days that novel controversies pitting men against women and women against men are regularly found at the center of Muslim public life. Some of these contestations are of course not entirely new. Whether women are permitted to do something or another, or what role men should play (if any) in ensuring a particular organizing structure for stable gender relations have often been dealt with at length (or, at a minimum, with sufficient clarity) in classical works. But those works often feel inadequate for those on the front lines. They do not address the sociological realities to which we attend, and avant-garde activists exploit such contextual disjunctions to further their insistence upon a reformed Islam that, fully re-read, holds only a tenuous relationship to revelation itself. Besieged by accusations of iniquity, misogyny, and callous indifference, religiously-committed actors run for cover in search for solutions. Some accommodate criticisms, opening up their usuli toolshed to produce alternatives that can be averred as in fact belonging to the tradition all along (or, perhaps, coinciding with its spirit more readily than the traditionally-held alternative). Whether such conclusions are theologically sound or products of urbane casuistry, the optics communicate a certain power dynamic in which religion moves at the behest of popular social currents. Of course, not all assume a posture of accomodation. Some become irascible and bitter, rejecting as stealth hypocrites many seemingly sincere inquirers. Others cower under the pressure and assume silence. Whatever the response, precious few onlookers leave these ordeals with much theological confidence.

Take for example the common question of whether women can serve as imams over mixed congregations. The vast majority of those wedded to the tradition in some form affirm a stance of prohibition, but they do so with little by way of compelling exposition. Some will appeal to the tradition as a historical artifact (‘the scholars and four madhahib have always held this view,’ etc.), others will insist that the entire discussion is of little use in the grand scheme of things given Islam’s absence of anything resembling Christian ordinating authority and priestly class, and yet others will malign such questions in principle, arguing that “God saying so” should be enough. All of these responses possess more than a few kernels of truth, but they dissemble in varying ways concerns which are, admittedly, of a more structural nature and extend far beyond the particularity of the question at hand.

For those fed up with Islam’s alleged patrionormativity, such responses pave the path for public outrage. Reformists, never wont to miss an opportunity to embarrass a defender of ‘the Patriarchy,’ quickly exhume little-known opinions and scandalize them in full view as demonstrations of the allegedly atavistic nature of the tradition. Public spectacles unfold, alliances forge and quickly calcify into tribal social media debates that provide a saddeningly large number of spectators a “fix” for their entertainment needs.

This story plays out in a variety of ways and on a variety of issues related to the topic of gender, though the contours are relatively stable in structure. Whether the dispute is over the composition of a panel or the lack of female empowerment in certain domains (marital life, scholastic opportunities, etc.), the debate is quickly pitted in very specific terms, ones that make it rather difficult for Islam’s gender-specific prescriptions and proscriptions to appear comprehensible to anyone other than the most committed.

It is my contention, and one that I will flesh out here in some detail, that the crux of our problem is that we continue to speak about gender under constructionist presuppositions. For those unfamiliar with gender constructionism, the thrust of the constructionist stance, put simply, is that gender is (almost) infinitely malleable and comes into being by a variety of social factors and social factors alone. In this reading, men and women do not manifest any gender-specific behaviors as an outgrowth of intrinsic disposition, but rather adopt them implicitly through programs of socialization. Given this primacy of socialization as a theory for explaining human behavior, it is said that human beings can be counter-socialized into alternative frames of thinking. In the context of gender, this means that inegalitarian institutions and patterns of conduct can be eliminated through the workings of a sufficiently motivated population departing from the gender norms of today. Carrying on in this assumption, some feminists have gone so far as to propose what Kathleen Stock has termed sex and gender eliminationism, which refers to proposals to do away with the categories of sex and gender altogether, thus democratizing and diversifying our social settings without the encumbrances of gender stereotyping. Others imbibe milder constructionist assumptions concerning gender equity, and this is evident in even religiously-committed circles, wherein the natural differences between men and women are papered over, ignored, or, at times, patently denied.

In the absence of a solid conception of gender difference, all (or atleast many) Shar‘i distinctions between men and women lack conceptual coherence. They impose upon a genderless tabula rasa, resulting in social formulations that seemingly enshrine female inferiority. Within such a backdrop, the commonly appealed to explanation of patriarchy and sexist scholarship gains significant traction, and simple facts about the tradition erode what little theological confidence remains among the uncertain. That the tradition is largely (though not exclusively) a product of male scholarly contributions is not lost on these people. Nor is the fact that the Messengers (rusul) were all men, as were the Prophets (anbiya’) according to the consensus view from which Ibn Hazm represents a solitary departure. Is it such a surprise then, that in such a male-centered production, that patriarchy emerged as the de facto norm? Or so the argument goes.

With such commitments in place, entire disciplines come under the knife. Tafsir, fiqh, hadith, and more are treated with extreme suspicion, and places of alleged gender-biasing are swiftly written away as spurious. Functionally, a Protestant-like sola scriptura emerges with only the Quran standing, though even this proves volatile as Amina Wadud’s recent objection to Aysha Hidayatullah’s Feminist Edges as maintaining an “all or nothing” relationship with the Quran goes to show, itself consonant with her prior advocacy of occasionally saying “no” to the Quran.

Put simply, the stakes could not be any higher, and the faith of many rests on our ability to pose a confident articulation of why Islam’s teachings should remain operative in light of the aforementioned critiques.

It was in thinking through the challenge of gender difference that I recently re-read Kecia Ali’s popular 2015 piece entitled “All Male Nonsense.” Contributing to the active discursive surrounding the phenomenon of “all-male panels,” Ali submits a seemingly compelling case for greater female inclusion in order to level existing power dynamics. She supports her case by drawing attention to both an absence of female speakers from important religious venues and an idealizing of specifically-western forms of gender modesty to enfeeble female representation as in the case of a Mercy Mission program featuring three female speakers whose personas were represented by inhuman caricatures branded in stereotypically-female pink colored labels.

Ali and others are right to note that some gender expectations are undoubtedly contributed to, if not formed entirely, by contingent social norms. Ali raises an example of gender socialization by citing color preference, with the blue=male and pink=female trope highlighted as a “twentieth century American invention.” Though not the focus of this paper, it should be noted that recent scholarship by Marco Del Giudice has called arguments against pink and blue gender preferencing into question, describing the common argument of a “pink-blue teversal” (PBR) advanced by Jo Paoletti that Ali bases her “twentieth century American invention” claim upon a “scientific urban legend.” (see Guidice, “Pink, Blue, and Gender: An Update” for more detail) Debates over the origins of color preferences notwithstanding, there are many conventions that, once normalized, reify as gender stereotypes that men and women of all stripes are socialized into or stigmatized against. Contemporary debates over gender nonconformity often hinge on the relative assailability of these very conventions, with affirmative therapy activists classifying as gender dysphoria even mild forms of gender atypical behavior (see Lisa Selin Davis’s “My Daughter Is Not Transgender. She’s a Tomboy.” for an example of this dynamic).

Having said that, what Ali and other feminist writers often fail to appreciate is the full amplitude of dispositional gender difference. These differences not only appear at the anthropological surface, with accentuated gender distinction appearing across every society known to man (past and present), but in many behavioral features that emerge in keeping with biologically-inscribed gender difference.

At its most basic level, male and female difference is an observed physiological reality. This is not merely a matter of distinct genitalia as is suggested by some gender reductionists. From physical strength, speed, and leaping ability, to brain phenotype, heart size, digestive systems, vascular function, and genetic patterns, men and women are fundamentally different in ways that bear significance in our lives. Derivative of our biological differences are behavioral predispositions, ones that come into effect when we consider our respective vocations, interests, and family lives. In chronicling these differences, Alastair Roberts writes,

Men are typically considerably more aggressive, competitive, and inclined to risk-taking or violent behaviours than women. Men, for instance, constitute the overwhelming majority of those within prisons in nations around the world and commit practically every crime at a higher rate than women. Across human societies, men are directly responsible for almost all serious violence and war. Men are consistently found to be much more promiscuous than women. Testosterone is correlated with higher levels of confidence, status assertion, and a higher sex drive. Men are also much more likely to take risks (both physical and intellectual), to be fearless, and to be treated as expendable by society.

Important differences in sociality exist too. Differences between the sexes emerge very early on, even before children have any conceptual appreciation of gender(e.g. 40 of 43 serious shootings by toddlers in 2015 were by boys!). Male groups are much more agonistic (not just physically, but also verbally and conversationally) and prone to direct violence; female groups can be much more prone to indirect and dissembled forms of social conflict. Women tend to prefer smaller groups; men tend to prefer larger ones. Male groups are more hierarchical in tendency; women’s are more likely to be egalitarian in their group norms. Women tend to be more people and social-emotional oriented than men; men tend to be more thing, task, and agency oriented than women. Women are more likely to have a verbal tilt in their ability; men are more likely to have a mathematical tilt. Worked out across societies and over time, these weighted tendencies have fairly consistently produced predictable patterns and far-reaching differences in male and female representation in various endeavours and roles. Indeed, these differences in gendered tendencies are often most pronounced in Western individualistic egalitarian societies, where people are freer to follow natural inclinations.

Although these differences were once common knowledge, the modern West’s commitment to gender egalitarianism in an often indiscriminate form flattens our anthropology, treating men and women as interchangeable beings and all social iniquities as a matter of great offense. This reading of the human species is not only in direct contradiction to the aforementioned biological and empirical evidence, but the consistent and unmistakable message conveyed to us in revelation. Although God often addresses the human collective in the Quran (i.e., ya ayyuha l’nas, ya ayyuha lladhina ’amanu), there are important instances in which divine instruction is provided with gender distinction. Men are famously mentioned as qawwam over women, and matters of testimony and inheritance are handled with gender specification. When both the male and female plural are mentioned as part of a collective address, it is always the male plural that appears first in sequence, with the single exception of fornication and adultery (zina), in which case the female fornicator is addressed prior to the male (al-zaniyatu wa l’zani — al-Nur:2).

These passages tend to elicit a fair amount of consternation, but they need not. Too often, our struggles revolve around the appropriate “role” men and women are expected to play in a system informed by the teachings of Islam, though we would be much better served by first recognizing that the distinctions and differences we possess as men and women are not a matter of performance (which would thus require us to adhere to some “role” or another), but natural, God-given predispositions that incline us to take on certain characteristics and traits. The Quran and Sunna accord with our creative disposition (fitra), and provide instruction in a manner that coheres with our gendered inherency. “Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtile, the Aware?” (Mulk:14). We are therefore not playing a role by behaving in a fitri fashion inasmuch as we are imbuing our natural tendencies with virtue while mitigating our lower inclinations from succumbing to vice.

It is the social constructionist preoccupation with performative expectations that has come to treat gender as little more than performance, itself an erasure of the primordial. Such neglect precipitates a toxicity that poisons our societal wells, entrenching us in vitriolic excoriations, manipulative mudslinging, and endless bouts of self-doubt, despair, and resentment while tethering female moral worth to feats that dovetail traits organically occurring more readily in men.

Take for instance our frequent celebration of women breaking stereotypes. At times, such stereotypes are indeed stultifying, products of noxious cultural norms that have emerged in recent decades. One such example is the sexualizing and objectifying of women in contemporary culture and corresponding social expectations to dress provocatively, a break from which would represent a shift towards female virtue and embrace of modesty (haya’). But many gender stereotypes are not nearly the product of social conditioning that gender equity advocates claim them to be, and in fact say much about our innate patterns of behavior and relative interests. An example of this is an issue that has been elevated to a sort of civilizational cause as of late is the relative dearth of female professionals in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Studies examining the STEM gender gap register a number of factors that help explain differential rates of interest and career progression within STEM, some innate, others environmental. Psychologist Alice Eagly writes about the gender gap in STEM,

The sex difference in average mathematical ability that once favored males has disappeared in the general U.S. population. There is also a decline in the preponderance of males among the very top scorers on demanding math tests. Yet, males tend to score higher on most tests of spatial abilities, especially tests of mentally rotating three-dimensional objects, and these skills appear to be helpful in STEM fields.

Of course people choose occupations based on their interests as well as their abilities. So the robust and large sex difference on measures of people-oriented versus thing-oriented interests deserves consideration.

Research shows that, in general, women are more interested in people compared with men, who are more interested in things. To the extent that tech occupations are concerned more with things than people, men would on average be more attracted to them. For example, positions such as computer systems engineer and network and database architect require extensive knowledge of electronics, mathematics, engineering principles and telecommunication systems. Success in such work is not as dependent on qualities such as social sensitivity and emotional intelligence as are positions in, for instance, early childhood education and retail sales.

This is not to suggest that social factors play no role at all. However, the question then begs itself as to whether all social factors can so easily be overcome, or whether overcoming said factors is a desirable objective to begin with. For example, a critical contributing factor cited by a number of leading studies examining the STEM gender gap is the female desire for family and offspring along with a willingness to sacrifice occupationally for their sake. One may address this obstacle by socializing women into devaluing family as an institution, but to what effect? Will it lead to greater happiness or personal fulfillment for women? Will shattering a latent stereotype and gained cultural currency compensate for what has been lost, namely, a robust family life?

Those championing our civilizational duty to oppose “the Patriarchy” refuse to consider such questions, though the available evidence offers a uniform and resounding “no.” The best formed and most reliable studies tell us that married couples are happier than their single counterparts. In a 2011 “Office Pulse Survey,” the profile of a working 42-year old unmarried woman was listed as reporting the highest rates of dissatisfaction and personal sadness. Depression rates have risen among women, rates of self-esteem have declined, and more women than ever feel inadequate on account of their body image or general feelings of insufficiency. All of this has led to a rise in attention to the fact that female unhappiness has not been appreciably ameliorated by greater career and educational achievement. On this, Evie Lie writes,

Right now there are an almost endless number of different lifestyle options available to us regarding our relationships, social lives, and careers, and for so long it seems like we’ve been fighting for the right to say, “Yes, I can do this!” that along the way, we forgot to ask ourselves whether we should do those things.

Moreover, when one takes into account the empirical data in countries highly regarded for their commitment to gender equity, the absence of appreciable statistical variation in STEM from those of less egalitarian countries further supports the possibility that women, when provided favorable conditions free of ‘implicit bias’ and social conditioning, simply elect fields of interest that coincide with their natural inclinations. A prominent example of this that has received a fair amount of attention has been that of the Nordic regions, wherein three in four women work in the labor force, generous public assistance programs exist to facilitate female employment, and gender-equity quotas are enforced by the government. In spite of this seemingly strident commitment to women in the workforce, women are in fact underrepresented in STEM fields at a rate higher than less egalitarian nations, just as they are less likely to occupy executive positions than those living in more ‘sexist’ societies. This finding has been dubbed the “Nordic Paradox” as well as the “Gender Equality Paradox” where studies have shown that “as gender equality increases both men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender roles.”

Meanwhile, fields in which women excel at, including nursing where women presently make up 91% of the profession (or the forty-some odd other occupations that women dominate), are not treated in the reverse with the field itself falling under intense scrutiny and public campaigns underway to intentionally diversify the profession to more acceptable rates of gender diversity. That the statistical gap inflects innate female tendencies is often taken for granted. Feminine forms of compassion, empathy, and individual care have been studied and contrasted with male compassion which often takes the form of protection and ensuring survival. This differential approach to compassion is buttressed by studies suggesting female brains as being more readily wired for compassionate and empathetic expression, with women showing “greater emotional sensitivity […] when viewing aversive and suffering situations.”

Our discomfort with these facts has unsettled prior theological narratives as well, leading to a number of curious re-readings that risk entirely misrepresenting the Quran and Sunna. The legacy of Khadija (ra) is a rather evident example of this, wherein she is often remembered first as a woman with a successful career, and secondarily as a pious and noble woman whose belief in Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) was coupled with pronounced emotional support and love for the Prophet (pbuh). One such article at the Huffington Post entitled “7 Remarkable Things About Khadija” enlists Khadija (ra) as a perpetual breaker of stereotypes by being a “successful and esteemed business woman” while also noting her declining of marriage proposals as an achievement worth celebrating. Importantly, our mother Khadija’s critical contribution as a consoling and loving spouse who helped the Prophet (pbuh) after Iqra’ was revealed to commence his prophetic mission and upon which he, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, expressed uncertainty is noticeably absent. It was her response to zammiluni, daththiruni, that ennobled her in Allah’s sight, and for which she is remembered today, an act that required not only resolve, but unshakeable conviction and a profound capacity for loving consolation. When the Prophet (pbuh) remembered her, he spoke of her belief, veracity, fiscal support, and bearing of children (see Sira Nabawiyya ‘ala Daw’ al-Qur’an wa l’Sunna, Muhammad Abu Shuhba, 1/400 for more detail). Here the Prophet (pbuh) does not eliminate or disregard the financial support Khadija (ra) provided him. However, he mentions it alongside other, equally important and critical acts through which God raised the rank of Khadija (ra) and fostered love in the relationship between her and the Prophet (pbuh).

Such narrative refactoring occurs in other contexts as well, such as the active retrofitting of the Prophet (pbuh) into specifically-feminist conceptions of model male behavior. Traditional works of Sira that chronicle his heroism, valor, military feats, physical strength and ability to wrestle even the strongest men, and related manly qualities are often overlooked or ignored in favor of new readings that describe the Prophet (pbuh) as a man in ‘touch with his emotions.’ The masculinity of the Prophet (pbuh) is implicitly pathologized as destructive or, alternatively, understood as socially acceptable for primitive Arab societies but unsuitable for our own.

Far from empowering women, the obsession with stereotype breaking paradoxically implicates natural female tendencies as harmful or substandard, treating them as guilty for entrenching patriarchal constructions that suppress female agency. Striving for individual agency is not a theme found in revelation, and women are neither presented for the purpose of advancing or impugning gender stereotypes. The Quran and Sunna provide examples of pious women and female saints that demonstrate multidimensionality, with a collective refusing of simple and parochial gender constructions (particularly those of the demurred housewife). However, all are inherently and fundamentally feminine in their legacy, existing within a circumscribed scope that departs normatively from the specifically manly virtues and acts taken up by prophets and male saints. The vast majority of women in the Quran are mentioned in familial, and most often specifically maternal or marital, contexts. Aside from Maryam (as), women mentioned in the Quran are referred to by a matronymic as in the case of Umm Musa, or more commonly by names denoting their spousal relationships (i.e., Imra’a Fir‘awn, Imra’a Lut, etc.). Allah places great emphasis on the act of childbirth, describing it as a process that involves the endurance of pain (kurh) and acute weakness (wahn). In reinforcing this ethic of maternal honor, the Prophet (pbuh) described mothers as more deserving of good companionship than any other human being, and when asked again and again who would deserve good companionship thereafter, chose to repeat “your mother” after which fathers were mentioned.

The Quran and Sunna therefore celebrate the legacy of women and assigns to them nobility in ways that explicitly correspond to their natural tendencies, both biologically and behaviorally, while concurrently cautioning against those women who surrender to moral indiscretion. Women are shown in various contexts, all communicating important lessons about the nature of relationships and the models women should look at when faced with similar circumstances. At times saintly women are mentioned as supporting their husbands in pious living and in other cases refusing to indulge their ignoble husbands felonious transgressions. In some instances, women betray their pious husbands confidences, succumbing to their worst impulses in violation of God’s command. In the case of Abu Lahab’s wife, she is mentioned as sharing with her husband an ominous end on account of their shared enmity to God and His Messenger (pbuh), acts for which they both occupy positions of severe torment in the fire of Hell.

Men and women complement one another, and God describes each as a “garment” (libas) for the other. Male assertiveness, physical strength, and pursuit of honor complements feminine sensitivity, empathy, deliberation, and prudence, thus providing for socially healthy relationships. The two can serve to raise one another towards godly virtue, or to debase one another in spiritually impoverishing preoccupations. Men and women were not created to be in a state of perpetual conflict or to view in the other irredeemable vice, but to instead support and participate in this world recognizing our mutual interdependencies — The believers, both men and women, support each other (al-Tawba:71). Marriage represents a very particular culmination of male-female complementarity and social organizing, and it is in the context of a healthy marriage that we find within the other sakina, mawadda, and rahma.

There have been a number of critical social developments that have attenuated the discernibility of gender difference. Our societal shifts away from manually intensive labor in favor of automation have upended economic dependence on male strength, engendering in its stead an economy largely predicated on non-physical labor. The utility of strength and necessity of arduous labor has been largely supplanted by technologies that perform with greater efficiency what was once accomplished by male toil. The coarsened nature of male character has been further enervated by an abiding intolerance for even mild discomfort, enabled by our ability to control within our domiciles temperature and lighting, select from seemingly infinite variations in cuisine options, and related expedients that unmoor us from life’s difficulties. Contraceptive technologies enabling sterile sexual relationships paired with abortion as a fail-safe in the event of unintended pregnancies has exacerbated the problem by reducing the prospect of male responsibility and the emergence of paternalism while undermining male-female sexual teleology. We are consequently witnessing a growth in what some are calling “extended adolescence,” with many men retaining a juvenile ambivalence to the demands of life and faith long after college on the one hand, and others exhibiting male dysfunction, anxiety, and suicidality on the other. Men today are far more likely than women to suffer narcotics addiction (especially opioid addictions), submit to criminal acts, and commit suicide. With the usefulness and common sense necessity of a male partner and provider no longer in play, a generation of women has come into being who no longer respect or need men. Unprecedented female agency has led to a worship of individual autonomy, with dependency viewed as prima facie subjugation. Accordingly, women eager for a spouse and family nonetheless pursue careers as a safeguard against failing marriages, thereby entering into marriages with one foot out the door and allowing little latitude for the regular tribulations that run the course of long-term marital relationships.

In describing 20th-century shifts away from social arrangements that required the active participation of men with brute strength for financial provision, Brett and Kay McKay describe a parallel weakening of Church teachings in line with the new arrangement, with American Christianity becoming “softer and more feminine and sentimental in its ethos.” It was during this era that “ministers eschewed preaching on the “harder” doctrines of good and evil, heaven and hell, and replaced convicting calls to repentance with more affirming platitudes on love, acceptance, and the ways in which living the gospel led to happiness and personal fulfillment. Rather than leading the way towards a revival of character, the Christian religion merely contributed to further spiritual desiccation.”

Unsurprisingly, Muslims in America are now making many of the same shifts. I describe one such phenomenon here in our active avoidance of speaking of fearing disobedience and God’s punishment as spiritually detrimental. Our forebears spoke forthrightly about cultivating a healthy fear of God without a great deal of compunction. Not so with many modern Khatibs whose sensibilities are finely tuned to studiously avoid conveying anything of possible discomfort. Calls for greater female leadership in the name of power and representation has led to ill-advised policies of gender gentrification and quotaized representation across Muslim institutions. Muslim women are told to aspire to positions of theological leadership, specifically in a manner that mimics the noxious “speakers circuit,” with all the pomp and fanfare that accompanies it. Perhaps soon their resumes will boast membership in the Muslim500 as well (a true repudiation of ‘the Patriarchy’ indeed).

This too compromises the theological integrity and rigor of our spiritual enclaves. Theological leadership has always been predominantly male, precisely because of the sort of characteristics that emerge from well-groomed manliness, such as bravery, gallantry, and a willingness to protect. These characteristics serve as necessary concomitants in the face of looming danger. For Muslims in America, these dangers exist in many corners, including those actively and deliberately distorting the teachings of Islam, trivializing the place of belief, and inverting Islam’s moral code. Traditionally, the ‘ulama played a critical role in both observing and maintaining normative doctrine in the face of opponents, often at great personal risk. Many of the greatest scholars in our tradition were at the peak of their intellection while incarcerated, whereas some, rightly lionized like the great Imam Ahmad (rh), endured ongoing physical torment for opposing heresiographies.

The prophets, upon them be peace, were shepherds, a vocation that requires a great deal of vigilance in the face of potential threats. A good shepherd tends to his flock with both compassion and strict order. The Prophet (pbuh) described us all as shepherds over our own flocks, and theological leadership is one that requires a much more pronounced form of shepherding, the ultimate goal being the furtherance of God consciousness against the wolves of idolatry, materialism, and hedonism. It is for this reason that the Prophet (pbuh) described the ‘ulama as inheritors of the prophets, carrying in their footsteps and upholding moral duty.

The modern Muslim celebrity taken as an ‘alim rarely dispenses such responsibility. Far from standing on the front lines of religious defense, Muslim leaders in the West have been enfeebled by gender constructionist discourses, adjusting their organizing structures, religious settings, and theological teachings to comport with feminist expectations, leading to an abandonment of duty to stand guard in the face of danger. The borderline-compulsive infatuation with being empathetic in a way that often derogates true prophetic mercy (itself requiring both glad tidings and warnings) is one such example of leadership suborned into impoverished modes of preaching. One often finds that the empathy-bearers of our moment dissemble vice, repeatedly equivocating in discussions of sin in a manner that leaves the very notion of falsehood and error subjectivized beyond meaning. Consuming alcohol, narcotics, committing fornication and adultery, partaking in riba, and even uttering words of kufr are overlooked (with such a posture increasingly encouraged), as our lack of omniscience in understanding relevant circumstances and possible mitigations comes to be viewed as sufficient for extricating all and sundry, while those who in fact adhere to God’s commands are held in great suspicion as holders of hubris and base hypocrisy.

Our engrossment with victimization in the form of Islamophobia also reflects more readily behavioral patterns found in feminine quarters. Studies on personal anxieties and fears consistently report women fearing victimization at statistically greater levels than men, even though men are often more likely to suffer at the hands of violent actors. Theories abound attempting to explain this heightened fear, ranging from socialization theories (of course) to ones that focus on differential power and vulnerability. It has also been found that women “fear for their children more than men; consequently, they may be more likely in their estimates to extend their personal fear of victimization to their fear for their children’s safety.”

None of this is said to suggest that women have no role to play in Muslim institutions, or that the feminine should find no residence in our communal lives — in fact, quite the opposite. Women are essential to the vitality of a healthy Muslim community, and Muslim institutions in the West are in dire need of women capable of challenging feminist norms and participating more broadly in the pedagogical transmission of belief to the next generation. Women form the foundation of Muslim life, and it is said that just as Eve was created from the rib which protects the heart, women as a collective protect the spiritual heart of the community; though such protection can only occur when men protect women. It should be remembered that Muslim mothers took to the streets of Birmingham defending their parental rights over their children in the face of LGBT indoctrination, and that Muslim women continue to be the backbone of our mosques while tending to show up in higher numbers to receive religious instruction. However, such participation should be calibrated to accent their natural inclinations and skills instead of continually pitting them against forms of authority that require specifically masculine characteristics (and for which men, as a result of said predispositions, invariably dominate). The reverse is of course equally true, as men cannot be encouraged to absorb and manifest specifically feminine virtue, thus undermining the institutional strength of Muslim theological life.

In all of this, we should not forget our many shared obligations in the eyes of God. Living upright, establishing prayer, fasting Ramadan, treating as lawful that which is halal, and treating as forbidden that which is haram while working to embody the superlative character of our Prophet (pbuh).

For men and women who are devoted to God- believing men and women, obedient men and women, truthful men and women, steadfast men and women, humble men and women, charitable men and women, fasting men and women, chaste men and women, men and women who remember God often- God has prepared forgiveness and a rich reward. (al-Ahzab: 35)

Other notes:

It seems that Swallows are disappearing in large numbers, and that this is the result of them being harvested during their migration by those in Egypt and other countries in North Africa. See this Daily Mail article for more detail (on a side, the Daily Mail might take the cake for the least navigable website on the planet. I am convinced that if there were ads that could be smuggled in-line, the very articles themselves would just be running ads…but alas, I digress). Quote from the piece :

The simple truth is that our migrating birds are being ‘harvested’ in huge numbers as they fly south in the autumn and north in the spring, and many of our conservation charities have not yet caught up with the horrific consequences.

Trapped in cheap Chinese mist nets slung between tall poles, millions of our summer visitors are being caught, sold and eaten.

Accurate figures are hard to find, but up to 140 million birds a year are being slaughtered as they pass through just one country: Egypt.

A investigation by German TV estimated that mist nests are erected along 700 kilometres of the Egyptian coast and in the Nile Valley, capturing a range of birds from the stunning golden oriole to the tiny but beautiful willow warbler.

There is similar bloodshed in Lebanon, Morocco and in most of the North African countries. Of course, people the world over catch and hunt birds, animals and even insects. Since the time of the pharaohs, migrating birds in north Africa have been caught and eaten using primitive traps and quick-lime — a sticky substance smeared on vegetation and buildings to hold down any birds attempting to perch and rest.

But things today are very different. Bird-catching has gone beyond a sustainable level and is carried out instead on an almost industrial scale, thanks largely to the fine-meshed, readily available and astonishingly cheap plastic netting manufactured in China.

Trapping birds has become like fishing in the air rather than in the sea.

Even if the swallows and swifts do manage to avoid the nets, they are also shot at. Then, if they pause to rest in any oasis they pass, there is the danger of the quick-lime.Shrikes, warblers, cuckoos, flycatchers and wheatears are all vulnerable. Some are not even killed straight away; they have their wings broken and are taken alive to traders, who slit their throats to satisfy halal tradition. Then they are sold for the equivalent of a few pence.

The piece names many culprits for this state (including the British), and if the situation remains unabated, it is quite possible that swallows will be extinct soon.

Will Collins writes an interesting piece at the American Conservative on our need to re-evaluate pedagogy. It is worth reading in full, but here is a good quote:

Consider our educational system from the perspective of someone who isn’t good at school. American meritocracy rewards academic credentials. A university degree is now seen as the default path to success. A host of inducements — for-profit and non-selective colleges, online degree factories, readily available student loans — exist to convince students whose talents would be better served elsewhere that they too can succeed in higher education. The end result? Crippling debt, empty credentials, and the steady decline of the university wage premium as the value of a degree is progressively diluted. The fact that our current president was sued for operating a fraudulent “university” is emblematic of these shortcomings.

Indeed, Allah Knows Best.