The psychology of hate and why men hate the ‘other’ women

“All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes” – Winston Churchill

Abu Eesa made a mistake. And it is my sincere belief that if he has been a real student of Islam, he has learned valuable lessons from it (although it’s hard to say what lessons he has learned as a ‘scholar’).

Islam teaches humility and repentance to Allah if you have hurt another human’s feelings (particularly if that human is another Muslim). Quran categorically lists the errors of some of the prophets all of whom were wise men and competent judges of their people so that humanity can learn from their mistakes and from their habit of repentance. Quran also reprimands the Prophet Muhammad when he (80:3–11): عبس وتولي  – “frowned and turned away.” This entire Quranic chapter is called عبس, meaning ‘frown’ and tells the Prophet that he was indeed wrong in frowning and turning away from a blind man who had approached him for he may have learned valuable lessons from the Prophet and may have grown in purity. The chapter goes on to tell the Prophet that he paid eager attention to the ones who could see/the self-sufficient/the knowledgable  even though he could not guarantee that they would increase in purity, yet ignored the blind man who ran to him with eagerness and fear of God in his heart.

What do we learn from this chapter? We learn that indeed it is the job of the teachers of deen to attend to the needs of everyone who seek their knowledge (including the self-sufficient and the needy) but it is particularly important for them not to frown and turn away from anyone who is a fellow Muslim because they do not know how much eagerness or fear of God they have in their hearts. Moreover, they don’t know who may benefit from their wisdom. To then mock them, and curse them to “wither and wiggle in rage” is certainly not in keeping with the Prophet’s sunnah nor is it in accordance with the teachings of the Quran.

People who support this blatant disregard for the Prophetic tradition and Quranic discipline and adab are at greater fault. In this most remarkable essay, the writer argues that “neural activity is important because it tells us something critical about how people think about one another. Those who are close to us are considered mindful human beings, “like me.” As people become more and more different from us, or more distant from our immediate social networks, they become less and less likely to engage our MPFC (medial prefrontal cortex). When we don’t engage this region, others appear relatively mindless, something less than fully human” – that is the psychology of hate and how we deny human beings their humanity. Abu Eesa and those who support him have distanced themselves from other Muslims who are “not like them” and hence such Muslims, progressives and feminists, are considered “relatively mindless, something less than fully human.” They “don’t understand Abu Eeas’s superior British humour”, they “don’t know him enough”, they are “hateful and want to cause fitnah.”  Abu Eesa’s supporters and recently he himself reposted his Facebook Note from June 2013 in which he calls the ‘sisters’ “awesome.” The keyword is ‘sisters’ who “keep pushing it higher and higher and raising the standards in Deen and ihsan. They are busy running the homes, raising the next generation, doing the da’wah on the streets, educating themselves and others, and just being all round superstars.” And then he lists examples of the superstar sisters. They are not journalists or fashion designers or businesswomen or anthropologists or neuroscientists; they are either students of Islam or ones who sacrifice “a good and free life” to support their husbands. But what about the thousands of Muslim women who don’t want to sacrifice a good and free life for a man, who want to study subjects other than Islam, who don’t cover their heads, who believe that women and men are equal in worth, and who support everyone based on humanity? They are less likely to engage Abu Eesa’s MPFC and hence are the ones who are mocked and cursed. More dangerously, he has consciously or inadvertently taught his students to hate and be arrogant. His students use similar sexist rhetoric to scare Muslim men from supporting women. The mindset is that if Muslim men support women they are emasculated and so for a Muslim man to be manly, he must make fun of women.

Is Abu Eesa really a misogynist who hates women? I don’t think so. I don’t think he hates *all* women. But the words he uses (which are banned in my own home) certainly do show hatred towards women who don’t form part of his approved circle.

I have said before that I don’t believe that traditional Islam, Islam as it was at its inception, and Islam as practiced in orthodoxy today by the likes of Abu Eesa believes in the equality of men and women in society. I don’t think that was ever the purpose of the earliest movement, but (if you read that previous post you will see that) all free Muslim women within Islam have equal rights. This is why it came as a shock to many Muslim women, including me, to see an alleged ‘ustad’/imam/sheikh ridiculing and cursing Muslim women only because they are also feminists.

Abu Eesa is now asking the ummah to “stay united” and not let “secular” people cause fitnah. Muslims have been united even if we showed our disagreement with him. We feel united and part of one ummah which is why we are offended when one of us shows his blatant male chauvinism. And this is one of the reasons I feel it was necessary that Muslims showed their disapproval in large numbers.

I believe that Abu Eesa’s *jokes* were deliberate to warn the women in his ‘circle’ from ever joining the feminist movement – for if they did, he would mock them in a similar fashion. He didn’t make one passing comment, but a series of sexist remarks cloaked in the garb of British humour. He didn’t educate himself enough to learn that IWD is not only supported by feminists but is celebrated even by women who refrain from calling themselves feminists.  But that is beside the point. The point is that since Abu Eesa and other men like him have no role to play in IWD, they feel that it threatens their security as the “all-knowledgeable” custodians of Islam without whom no movement can prosper, and so he feels it is a day that must be mocked, shunned and ridiculed.

No, Yasir Qadi that is not British humour. I’m amazed that British people are not offended by this persistence that Abu Eesa has “dark British humour.” His humour is of its own kind. If Abu Eesa claims to be British in humour then he should also be British in apology and should have apologised unconditionally right away if he realised that he had “frowned and turned away.”

But he didn’t realise it and only made it worse when a woman displayed her anger:


What AE said in response was not a *joke*, he is right. I also don’t believe he was condoning such behaviour. But I think he is not enlightened enough to understand the gravity of his words on public forums. It was worse than his regular *jokes.* It was an arrogant and angry outburst at the woman for which he claims he had to stoop at the intellectual level of his interlocutor (BTW, if you can access it, there’s a scholarly paper on how “challenging chauvinist attitudes often results in anxiety or other symptoms“). Again, Muslims have questioned if Abu Eesa’s response was in keeping with proper adab. While one may be able to pick and point to ahadith in which the Prophet cursed his interlocutors in the same tone as was used (Volume 8, Book 73, Number 57) one quick scan of the page will show that he never cursed fellow Muslims and Islamic history stands witness that he in fact pardoned and blessed those who harmed him in Taif. That is the Prophetic tradition. Abu Eesa on the other hand, apparently caused post-traumatic stress for not just one Muslim sister through his comments, but others too who didn’t realise they were suffering from PTSD. Like Omid Safi says, “Abu Eesa is simply, sadly, pathetically, and unprophetically, not funny.”

Abu Eesa’s students keep pleading that they know him better and that this is his ‘style.’ However, he didn’t contain his ‘style’ to his classroom; he brought it out because the women he hates are the ones outside his classroom. And the women he mocked, who are angered, are Muslim. Non-Muslim women don’t know Abu Eesa and don’t care about what he says because in their minds he’s just another Muslim man acting like just another stereotypical Muslim man mocking Muslim women, women from his ummah, women who look like him and behave like him. Only Abu Eesa doesn’t realise this. And then we complain why our men are stereotyped! This is also why Muslim women are angry with him. They feel betrayed by one of their own. They feel he’s belittling their cause – a cause that wants recognition of Muslim women as fully equal in worth as human beings, a cause asking men to be tolerant and respectful, a cause expecting men to be their allies, a cause they think Abu Eesa should be supporting as a self-professed follower of Quran and Sunnah.

Muslim women have always asked for their rights from the beginning of Islam. Islamic/Muslim Feminism as it is called today, is not bidah (an innovation). The very reason that men like Abu Eesa exist and think like he does is enough for feminism to exist in Islam of today. Abu Eesa makes IWD essential.

However, I noticed that Abu Eesa is making an effort to show women that he’s not a monster (and he isn’t!) – by re-posting an old Note in which he praises Muslim sisters, he shows that he respects at least the women in his circle.

The teacher just needs to learn to extend that circle.

List of reactions

Safiyyah Surtee’s status update –

Abu Eesa’s anxious outburst –

The Shaykh and the F Word –

How Al Maghrib Blew It –

Muslim male allies –

Wa’Mutasima! –

An Open Letter to Abu Eesa Niamatullah –

On Islam and Feminism –

Imam  Suhaib Webb –

Guest Post – Speak Good or Remain Silent: A Response to the Recent Remarks of a Muslim Teacher –

Muslims for White Ribbon –

Damsels in distress, the chivalrous caliph, and the misogynistic scholar: a modern fairy tale –

Al Maghrib’s comment –

Yasir Qadi’s thoughts on Abu Eesa –

What Abu Eesa’s comments did to my family this week –

We deserve better than sexist and racist “teachers”: Honoring real leaders, and a rejoinder to Abu Eesa –

Oh, Abu Eesa: an apology letter on your behalf –

Feminism, male privilege, and Abu Eesa –

Challenging misogyny

Most people are ill-informed about Islamic Feminism and wrongly assume that Muslim feminists are people who are not faithful to Islam and want to change the religion. To be honest not all Muslims feminists agree with each other and this is something I find very beautiful about them.

But there are topics where almost all Muslim feminists would unite. Such topics are reasons why at least I feel that Islamic Feminism is absolutely necessary. One such topic on which most MFs would unite is that of the Hoor-el-ain (the Heavenly company reserved for Muslim men). MFs have understood these mystical beings in various ways. Amina Wadud thinks that they are mythical creatures mentioned only initially in Meccan verses to allure men to accept Islam. Hasan Al Basri understood them as earthly wives repackaged as beautiful mystical creatures in Heaven. Mohammad Asad saw them as both male and female company for Muslim men and women.

Yesterday I linked this post by Tazeen, a Muslim Pakistani woman on Metis’ Facebook Page. The post titled “The Heavenly Orgy” is full of anger and disappointment which is not unfounded. I don’t want to paste the entire post here but what I found most important is at the end,

“In a deeply segregated society like Pakistan, such misogynist perversions actually form the basis of inter gender relationships. What we take from this video is: all men are supreme beings, women are filthy and not worth the time, piety is only good to get you laid in the afterlife and repeated use of the word istemal [use] indicates that women will continue to being used as commodities in the paradise.”

To be fair, the cleric does refer to ahadith that can be found in various hadith compilations and at least once he makes a reference to Quran 38:52. But the manner in which he uses those ahadith to belittle women and call them filthy, dirty whores in very unfortunate. For one, many Quranic commentators including the respected Muhammad Asad think that Quran 38:52; 37:48 and 55:56 are allegories that apply to both men and women who will be “rejoined with those whom they loved and by whom they were loved in this world.”

From the various Islamic traditions on Hoor-el-ain (most of which you can find on this link and also see this link) vivid descriptions about the Hoor-el-ain can be found. One thing that is most evident to me is that, like Tazeen even insinuated, the Hoor-el-ain are what a human female can never be. These myths, having originated in Arabia, ensure that an Arabian woman knows that she can never be alabaster white. No woman can “revirginate” after every sexual intercourse; neither can she continue to have an “appetizing vagina.” Women do and will continue to sweat and excrete waste. They will continue to give birth to blood smeared babies and much that men would want, they are not currently “busy deflowering women” all the time. This may affect the psychology of an earthly woman on an unconscious level. The skin whitening soaps; hymen reconstruction surgeries; vaginal constriction creams; kohl dipped eyes; breast lifting surgeries; and the incessant debates that a woman must never challenge/upset her husband and must never refuse him are, I think, the indirect effects of deep inferiority complexes with which many women suffer.

I have always said that Muslim feminists have existed from the beginning of Islam demanding that the Quran address women just as it addresses men; creating the need for strict action against slanderers; establishing the practice of forbidding polygyny in marriage contracts; and asking that the Quran also commend the migratory efforts of women from Mecca to Yathrib as it commended the efforts of men. However, for just as many centuries misogynist interpretations, additions and interpolations into Islamic scriptures like those about the Hoor-el-ain have also made women feel that they “are filthy and not worth the time [and that they] will continue to being used as commodities [even] in paradise.”

This is why Islamic Feminism is so necessary. We need Muslim women and men to challenge anything and everything that reduces women to chattel.

Women in positions of power

This is the subtitle of the chapter Position of Woman in the Islamic Shariah in Wahiduddin Khan’s book Woman between Islam and Western Society.  Khan writes:

Even the modern world still finds it unimaginable that a woman should be given a high government office. In a poll taken in 1972, the majority of American voters said that they would rather have a black man than a woman as president. The idea of a woman president was ridiculed. Someone joked: “When the lady president delivers her child, the hospital bulletin will have to announce that ‘the President and baby are doing well.'”

The Persian emperor Chosroes died during the life of teh Prophet. His courtiers crowned Chosroes’ daughter queen. On hearing this news, the Prophet said, “A nation which makes a woman its ruler will not progress.”

The researchers of modern age now testify to the truth of this time-honored principle laid down by Islam. Fourteen hundred years ago, Islam held that a woman was not fit for so high a position as that of a sovereign. While until recently this could have been regarded as a mere assertion made a very long time ago, today it is accepted as a scientific fact. What the Prophet had said as a matter of inspiration has now been established, after a long period of study and research, as a reality. This is clear proof that Islamic principles are based on facts of nature and not just on supposition and conjecture.

I thought this was timely since just recently I had posted on Muslim women and politics. Now that I have come out of my initial shock at Khan’s ideas regarding women and positions of power, I can point to the sources of my horror:

1.  What does he mean by “researchers of modern age now testify to the truth of this time-honored principle”? Who are the researchers? What was their study? What is all this about?

2. Is there a “time-honored principle laid down by Islam” that women are absolutely unfit “for so high a position as that of a sovereign”?

3. Is it a “as a scientific fact”? Really?

4. Isn’t whatever Khan has written actually unsupported “supposition and conjecture” which he presents as an Islamic principle?

5. Is women having babies a joke that should be ridiculed? Does it make woman “unfit”?

So now you know why I have been chewing on my furniture lately!