Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

ISSN: 1303-8303Volume 3 Issue 2 December 2013

Araştırma Makalesi / Research Article

___________________________________________________________

God and Gender in Islam

___________________________________________________________

İslam’da Tanrı ve Cinsiyet

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

MUSTAFA ÇEVİK
Adıyaman University

Abstract: The feminist theology depends on the thesis that the

theology based on male-dominant culture. According to this the-
sis, it is believed that the present theology must be revised from
women’s point of view. It has been said that this theology is a rela-
tive theology on the assumption that the present theology is large-
ly a masculine paradigm, which is a result of man’s historical expe-
rience. When the concepts of Islam and feminism are thought to-
gether, the status of women in Islamic societies is generally dis-
cussed. However, instead of this, it should be investigated whether
present situation has a theological foundation in Islam or not. It
should be discussed whether God’ attributes and names have sexu-
al or masculine content. Biologically, it is widely believed that God
has no sexual character. But metaphorically, whether God has fe-
male or masculine attributes, and women’s socially backwardness
results from Muslim’s imagination of God is an important issue to
research. In this paper, it will be discussed whether some Qur’anic
verses commented against women are masculine commentaries or
Quranic data.

Keywords: Feminism, God, feminist theology, Islam, Christianity,

gender, masculine dominant culture.

___________________________________________________________
 Mustafa Çevik, Doç. Dr.
Adıyaman Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Bölümü02040, Adıyaman, TR
[email protected]
2
Mustafa Çevik

Feminism can generally be described as the struggle to resolve issues

stemming from men's sovereignty over women. From this point of view,
it might seem, if the description above is true, that history and civiliza-
tion have been thought up by men, not by women, so that history and
civilization are not colored by the feminine, and all of human legacy is
impregnated by the masculine. Indeed, the same claims are made about
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

religion, its foundations and its interpretation. 'Feminist theology' in this

context, then means the reconstruction of religious beliefs allegedly
kneaded by men in an attempt to frame them in the context of women’s
understanding, “bringing [new] insights [resulting] from the women’s
experience and wisdom” (Parsons, 2002: xiii). Thus, the main problem
for feminist theology is to prove the dominance of masculine and the
passive position assigned to the feminine in the development of the theo-
logical discourse so as to change the situation in woman's favor.

Accepting as true that theology or theologies were developed under

the dominance of the masculine brings to mind automatically a question:
Does this dominance come from the original sacred texts or from the
historical interpretations of believers? It is very important to address this
question, for another point has to be taken into account and kept in
mind: most religions claim that their sacred text are not product of hu-
mans, that they are divine messages that came from God to humans by
means of revelation. Then feminist theology can be divided into two
different categories, secular feminist theology on one hand, and religious
feminist theology on the other hand. By "secular" we meant all codifica-
tion, all comprehension, whether stemming from mental or physically
realms, all existence within a sphere or a reality independent from any
religion (Casanova, 2009: 1049).
Thus, the first one, namely secular feminist theology holds that all
religions are exclusively historical constructs, and in no way of divine
source. It constitutes then an atheistic attitude towards religions in gen-
eral. The second, namely religious feminist theology argues, at least, that
the religion perceived by the masculine focusing and interpreted in frame
of misogyny. So they argue that the whole images of masculinity about
God are only the deviation of the religion. Secular feminist theology
rejects the whole concept of religion and claims that all religions reflect a

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
3
God and Gender in Islam

masculine focus and that, furthermore, they do not emanate from any
divine sources. Religious feminist theology does not refuse the whole of
religion; they refuse only the masculine understanding and interpretations
of the sacred texts as well as God. In any event, if the whole concept of
religion is rejected, it becomes then irrational to address the issue of reli-
gious interpretation, since it is hardly the concern of atheists. So the

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

feminist theology, not feminism, should not be a philosophical problem for
atheists. It would be a problem rather for believers in any religion to
discuss their religious interpretation. Otherwise, it would be like a soph-
ist discussing rationalists' claims concerning knowledge after having re-
jected knowledge. It is not up to the sophist to assess which claim might
be more rational, since he rejects the very basis of all of their claims.
Conversely, it would seem most irrational for atheists to argue whether
any of God's verses are masculine in nature or not.
In the Western world, there are many discussions about women’s
rights in religion, referred to as feminist theology. For example Kathryn
Tanner, in her ‘Theories of Culture: a New Agenda for Theology’ propos-
es a cultural theory of modernization of mainstream Christian under-
standing. She calls her theory feminist theology whereas it is only a ‘social
construct’ (Tanner, 1997: 128, 140), as is the case today in the West for
most feminist theological understanding. However, we hold that these
are not theological discussions: if ‘feminist theology’ adds the word ‘the-
ology’ to the concept of feminism, it should at least include some think-
ing about God and his attributes, for the rights of women in any given
civilization are about law more so than about theology. We therefore
shall not refer to women’s rights as ‘feminist theology’ in this paper, and
propose that religious feminist theology is the only kind of feminist the-
ology worth discussing to the exclusion of secular feminist theology. If we
can say without hesitation that men have historically exercised a domi-
nant influence in all areas of religion, it is not clear whether man uses a
masculine methodology in pondering religious epistemology. Such a claim
ought to first be supported with proof so as to avoid the hasty conclusion
that theology is masculine-based simply because it has been established
by men. Moreover, we would have to put forth that women generally
speak in a different manner, and that they do so in particular in discuss-

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
4
Mustafa Çevik

ing theology. Otherwise, it would only be an opportunistic hypothesis to

push the feminist cause: all symbols and images of theology would get
transferred to the feminist realm and therefore to a feminine mode of
expression as stated by Rebecca S. Chopp (1997: 230). So that in short,
denouncing men dominance would automatically constitute a feminist
theological discourse. But it has nothing to do with theology, with the
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

existence and nature of God. It relates exclusively to social, cultural and

political interpretations of religion. Conversely, it would not be appropri-
ate for discussions about theology to be anchored on the examination of
male dominance in the realm of religious sciences, as feminist theology
attempts to do. This phenomenon takes place in Muslim societies as well,
although it is endemic of the Western Christian world, whereby thinking
and writings addressing women’s rights are referred to as feminist theolo-
gy (Mogissi, 2005: 323; Bardan, 2010; Arimbi, 2009: 53) and whereas it is
certainly pertinent to call it feminist, if speaking about feminist theology,
the focus ought to be placed on what is believed or expounded about God
in the context of male-dominated thinking. Otherwise, it would only be
women’s rights from perspective of feminist anthropology or just feminism.
Let us now examine whether or not Islam’s views of God are the re-
sult of androcentric influence. As commonly known, the pronoun ‘He’
(Huve/Hu in Arabic), and not ‘She’ (Hiye/Ha), is used in referring to Allah.
We can say many verses in the Qur’an saying ‘He’ or ‘Him’ for Allah in-
stead of ‘She’ or ‘Her’. But is it enough to judge that God is therefore of
the masculine gender? Or why does God always have masculine pronoun
in the Qur’an? It is clearly known that in Arabic language it is necessary
to use one of the sexual pronouns. For that reason, all this kind of using is
only grammatical classification, not an ontological classification. There is,
therefore, no truth in the claim that God would possess any sexual onto-
logical identity based on using masculine pronouns. For instance, the Sun
is a feminine word in Arabic language, but no one talks about the sexual
identity of the Sun. Because the femininity can only being applicable for
plants, animals and humans grammatically, not biologically or sexually.
So, this kind of femininity should not be considered in the context of
God’s nature. An interesting question in the context of the use of the
masculine pronoun is however, why is the ‘He’ (Huve) always used in the

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
5
God and Gender in Islam

Qur’an when referring to Allah? We believe it to be only a grammatical

choice. If the pronoun ‘She’ were used instead, we would have the same
question. No more than that need be read into that choice, and it can be
unequivocally stated that such a choice does not contain any deep philo-
sophical message to be explored by feminist theology as to Islamic per-
spective. What might need to be particularly examined by feminist the-

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

ology however is how our own imagination fathoms God’s existence and
nature. Namely, we ought to explore whether or not how we imagine
God is derived from masculine perception. In that context, feminist the-
ology would focus on our beliefs about God and how they might reflect a
gender-based thinking since as above-stated. Because the femininity only
be considered for plants and animals in this context.
Even insofar as our imagination about God containing gender ele-
ments is concerned, two different points have to be considered: first that
these gender-based elements might be due to the way Allah describes
himself in the Qur’an; secondly, that is not at all due to any description
Allah might have given of himself in the Qur’an, but to our own mascu-
line bias in reading the Qur’anic texts. What would cause such self-
description of Allah to imply gender-based qualities is the unavoidable
result from having to translate such description in human terms which
inexorably imply gendered elements. But I believe this to be a mistaken
supposition. If the way in which we imagine God is imbued of gender
considerations, then we have not succeeded in thinking in the abstract
which is fundamentally required in order to think about God, for in a
certain manner, to understand or interpret God’s attributes from gender-
based perspectives engenders a kind of religious pluralism. As John Hicks
states, all of our intentions and of our experiences in understanding God
are not only the result of cognitive ability, unavoidably, involuntary con-
tributions are made as well by our state of mind, and the images suscitat-
ed by our attempts at understanding God’s messages to us. Hick speaks
in terms of Kant’s numen to explain this inevitable interference. He says:
“Divine reality is necessarily known to us in the forms made possible by
our own conceptual resources and spirituals practices.” (Hick & Nasr,
1997: 175-188). If theological interpretations contain some kind of mascu-
line-based understanding, Hick is right in his claim in theology and con-

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
6
Mustafa Çevik

ceptual resources relation. This means that the human mind does not
easily avoid the gender trap as it attempts to fathom and imagine God’s
attributes. But let us not forget that Muslim do not believe that the
Qur’an is the ‘answer to understanding Allah’, as Hick may say (Hick &
Nasr, 1997: 175-188.). On the contrary, the whole of Muslim understand-
ing of what is stated in the Qur’an is Allah’s message to humans.
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

After this determination what we can say in examining feminist the-

ology from the perspective of Islam is that the main issue is whether
there are any gender considerations influencing our understanding or not
in Islamic theology. If there are any gender contents in Muslim faith
about Allah’s attribute and his existence we should clean them by feminist
theology method to reach the real theology without shadow of gender. In
this context the main problem for Islamic feminist theology is: (1) elimi-
nate from our imagination all masculine elements concerning the abstrac-
tion of God, so as to sanitize Muslim theology, and (2) to do the same
with any feminine elements so as to achieve the reality required by Mus-
lim theology in perceiving God’s image.
On the other hand if there is any other element perceived as imply-
ing that women are ontologically different, then that has to be discussed
as well by Islamic feminist theology. For example as Riffat Hassan estab-
lishes three prejudices relative to women’s ontological status. She says
“(1) that God's primary creation is man, not woman, since woman is be-
lieved to have been created from man's rib, hence, women are ontologi-
cally derivative and secondary; (2) that woman, not man, was the primary
agent of what is generally referred to as "Man's Fall" or man's expulsion
from the Garden of Eden, hence, "all daughters of Eve" are to be regard-
ed with hatred, suspicion, and contempt; and (3) that woman was created
not only from man but also for man, which makes her existence merely
instrumental and not fundamental” (Hassan, 2001). If this understanding
is God’s message to human about women then it will be possible to argue
that there is a feminist theology in Islam.
We must then first ask: is there in the Qur’an any substance to see
women ontologically of lower status than that of men? For example did
Allah say in the Qur’an that he created women from the rib of men? We
know that there is not any such thing in the Qur’an. This is only a reper-

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
7
God and Gender in Islam

cution of Torah tradition upon Islamic culture. They called this unilateral
impact as Israiliyyah in Islamic literature. In this subject we can see that
the Qur’an states: “Allah created you from one soul (nafs).” (Qur’an, al-
An’am: 98) In another verse Allah says: "Allah created you from one soul
and created from her mate that he might dwell in security with her”
(Qur’an, al-A’raf: 189). In addition we can see in Qur’an that the Adam

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

word is mostly used for human in general, not for the male gender in par-
ticular.
The second statement implying that women were the cause of hu-
mans being thrown out from paradise, is not also indicated anywhere in
the Qur’an. In the section (surah) where the creation of humans is de-
scribed Allah says: “We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the
Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye
will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression.
Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of
the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: Get ye down, all
(ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwell-
ing-place and your means of livelihood - for a time.” (Qur’an, al-Baqarah:
35-36) We can see the same event in another where in the Qur’an: "O
Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things)
as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgres-
sion. Then Satan began to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly
before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he
said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels
or such beings as live forever. And he swore to them both, that he was
their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they
tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began
to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord
called unto them: Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan
was an avowed enemy unto you? They said: "Our Lord! We have
wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us
Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost. (Allah) said: Get ye down. With
enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your
means of livelihood,- for a time. He said: Therein shall ye live, and therein
shall ye die; but from it shall ye be taken out (at last). O ye Children of

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
8
Mustafa Çevik

Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well
as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness,- that is
the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive ad-
monition! O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same
manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their
raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only)
to those without faith" (Qur’an, al-A’raf: 19-27).We can see clearly that
women are not described as cause of expulsion from paradise in Qur’an.
In the Qur’an both man and woman are responsible. No justification is
required to vindicate ontologically claims of feminist theology in Islam.
There is not any proof in the Qur’an to justify that woman is created
only to help man. So, no need to dwell upon the above-stated third claim.
So we have to ask the question: Is there any masculine-based theo-
logical imagination in Muslim culture even if there is not any masculine-
based theological understanding in the Qur’an? Is there any cultural ele-
ment in Islamic culture which Carol P. Christ denounces in Western
culture in saying: "feminist criticism of religion began with a protest
against this familiar image of God as an Old White Man found in tradi-
tional piety? This God is known through the image of Lord, King, and
Father" (Christ, 2003: 24). Can anyone say the same thing for Islamic
Culture? It is not easy to claim that there is any masculine-based imagina-
tion of Allah in Islamic culture. Establishing that way of referring to God
with masculine pronouns in the Qur’an, in the Bible or in the Torah, is
devoid of meaning more than grammatical. Were there any masculine
images for God in these holy texts, it would justify the rightfulness of the
feminist theological claims towards religion. Here are some verses from
Holy Book: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
In he was life; and the life was the light of men... And the Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth... No man hath seen God
at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him" (Holy Book, St. John: 1:1-2; 1:14, 18). Another verse
from John: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how say is

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
9
God and Gender in Islam

thou then, how us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me?" (St. John, 14:9-10).
Let’s see what Qur’an says in the same subject: "The Jews say: Uzair
(Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christian say: Messiah is the son of
Allah. That is saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the
disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse is on them, how they are deluded away

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

from the Truth!" (Qur’an, al-Tawba: 30.). Another verse of Qur’an says:
"It befits not Allah that He should beget o son"(Qur’an, Maryam: 35).
Of course there is not only masculine sovereignty in theology in ex-
pressing God with the names reminiscent of man. Sometimes under-
standings which refer to man can also imply the existence of the mascu-
line-based theology. For some feminist authors it can be easily mistaken
as the thought of men. In this frame, man is paralleled to rationality and
woman to irrationality (Anderson, 1998: 32). For example Anderson says:
"in symbols and myths, the female other configures the material content
of affections, desires, biological needs, of life from fatality to mortality;
this material is precisely what the rational subject lacks but needs. In the
end it is to the subject's detriment that, while belief has been tested ra-
tionally and justified rigorously according to formal principles of logic,
the material content of life has been symbolically and literally excluded
from and devalued in the construction of religious belief. For instance,
the formal side of belief construction might include the a priori and em-
pirical principles of coherence, of credulity, and of simplicity while the
material side of belief, including the believer's own bodily life, would be
excluded and then devalued as female, defiled, or abject" (Anderson, 1998:
32). Anderson says that man assigns to himself the “rational creator" role
in many, and gives two examples to justify her claim. One of the example
is John Locke's "God is the creator of the rational creatures" and other is
Alvin Plantinga's "warrant to Christian realist forms of theism." For An-
derson, to see religion and rationality paralleled by Descartes is only rele-
vant to a masculine religious imagination. He says that Descartes produc-
es a "rational God" in the image of man (Anderson, 1998: 36).
We should question whether Islamic theological understanding is ra-
tional or irrational. As in many religious traditions we can see many dif-
ferent theological understandings of Islam, too. One can see both ration-

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
10
Mustafa Çevik

al and irrational theological understandings in Islamic theological theo-

ries. For example we can say that theologies of mutakallimun (Islamic
theologians) and of falasifah (Islamic philosophers during Medieval) are
mostly rationalistic whereas theology of mutasawwifah is irrational. And
we cannot underestimate the Sufi understanding in the whole of the his-
tory of Islamic culture. We can see clearly that Allah's attributes of love,
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

forgiveness, mercy, grace and beauty belong to woman, -if they are-, are
dealt with more extensively than other attributes. So maybe we can say
that the rationality is not an attribute of the nature of man's mind as Sue
Anderson says. We should remember that many understandings about
love, desire and passion which are mostly feminine, if they are, are devel-
oped also by men as much as did by woman. We can say the same thing
for tasawwuf (Islamic mysticisms), too. So it will not be right to say that
rationality belongs to man and irrationality to woman, neither for Islam
nor in general. Indeed it is not rational to say that men are more rational
from woman. At least it contains a humiliation towards woman to say
that women's mind is not rational as man's mind is. This understanding
also implies that woman and man belong to different species. However
there is possible both for woman and man to be rational or irrational.
This may be rather about individual qualities more than about gender.
As a conclusion it can be said that the status of women in Islamic
societies can be discuss in frame of feminism not of feminist theology.
Because it may be called as feminism but it is far from being feminist
theology. That is the first point of this paper to be established. Because
we cannot describe as theology any discussion unless it is not about God's
nature and his existence or about his messages directly. To describe any
theology as feminist theology, God's imagination or his messages must con-
tain a masculine-based influence or an ontological discrimination be-
tween man and woman's nature. In this context it is not possible to say
that there is any feminist theology in Islamic culture, because there is no
masculine attributes for Allah or any masculine God images in Islamic
culture. The using of masculine pronouns, like ‘He’ (Huve/Hu), is not an
ontological gender classification, only a grammatical and literal necessity
for Arabic language.
Another point, as some feminists say, if women are irrational and

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
11
God and Gender in Islam

men are rational, we can see many attributes both rational and irrational
which used for Allah in Qur’an. So one can say both masculine and femi-
nine attributes used in Qur’an in same time. We did not discuss the claim
that man is superior or not comparing to women in the fields of legacy,
divorce, witnessing. Because, as we said before, these kinds of claims are
the problems of feminism more than of “feminist theology”.

Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

References

Anderson, P. S. (1998). A Feminist Philosophy of Religion: the Rationality and Myths of

Religious Belief. Oxford: Blacwell.

Arimbi, D. A. (2009). Reading Contemporary Indonesian Muslim Women Wri-

ters: Representation, Identity and Religious Muslim Women in Indonesian
Fiction. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Bardan, M. (10.05.2010). Islamic Feminism: What's in a Name? The Feminist eZine.
http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/international/Islamic-Feminism-
01.html.
Casanova, J. (2009). The Secular and Secularisms. Social Research, Vol. 76 (4).

Chopp, R. S. (1997). Theorizing Feminist Theology. Horizions in Feminist Theology:

Identity, Traditions and Norms (eds. R. S. Chopp & S. G. Devaney). Minneap-
olis: Fortress Press.
Christ, C. P. (2003). She who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hassan, R. (2001). Challenging the Stereotypes of Fundamentalism: An Islamic

Feminist Perspective. Muslim World, 91 (1-2).

Hick, J. & Nasr, S. H. (1997). Dinler ve Mutlak Hakikat Kavramı: John Hick ve
Seyyid Hüseyin Nasr’la Bir Mülakat (çev. A. Aslan). İslam Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 1.

Moghissi, H. (ed) (2005). Women and Islam: Criticial Concepts in Sociology.

London: Routledge.
Parsons, S. F. (ed) (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tanner, K. (1997). Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013
12
Mustafa Çevik

Özet: Feminist teoloji, büyük oranda teolojinin erkek egemen kül-

tür üzerine kurulduğu tezine dayanır. Bu iddiaya göre mevcut teo-
lojiler kadın bakış açısından yeniden gözden geçirilmeli ve revize
edilmelidir. Çünkü mevcut teoloji göreli bir teoloji olup erkeğin ta-
rihteki deneyimine dayalı olarak gelişmiş bir erkekçi paradigma ile
geliştirilmiştir. İslam ve feminizm kelimeleri birlikte düşünüldüğü
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy

zaman teolojik bağlamdan çok kadının İslam’daki hukuksal yerinin

tartışıldığını görüyoruz. Bununla birlikte kadının İslam’daki hukuk-
sal durumunun teolojik bir temeli olup olmadığı tartışılmalıdır. Al-
lah’ın isimlerinin veya sıfatlarının bir cinsiyet veya erkekçi içeriği
olup olmadığı gözden geçirilmesi gerekir. İslam dininde Allah’ın
biyolojik olarak cinsiyet özelliği olan bir varlık olduğuna inanılmaz.
Fakat metafor olarak Kur’an’da geçen kimi ifadelerin cinsiyet an-
lamı içerip içermediği araştırılması ve üzerinde düşünülmesi gere-
ken bir konudur. Bu yazıda kadınların aleyhine yorumlanan bazı
ayetlerin kendi gerçek anlamı mı yoksa bir tür yoksa erkek yorumu
mu olduğu tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Feminizm, Tanrı, feminist teoloji, İslam, Hıris-

tiyanlık, cinsiyet, erkek egemen kültür.

B e y t u l h i k m e 3 ( 2 ) 2013