This was written by Faith and originally published at Muslimnista.
The NY Times published an article today titled “In Europe, Debate Over Islam and Virginity”. The article discusses how some Muslim women are surgically reconstructing their hymens before marriage to give the illusion that they’re virgins. The reason why their virginity is connected to their honor has nothing to do with Islam, however, but rather with culture (even in various Muslim cultures, the degree to which this is the case varies among different classes, political affliations, etc.). Also, Muslims are not the only people to connect sexuality to honor or to do this procedure (anyone heard of born-again virgins doing the same thing?). That is why the title of the article is so misleading. Of course, the Qur’an commands chastity from women, but what is often missing from these conversations is that the Qur’an also commands chastity from men. This is an incredibly important point that the Times never asserts. I think this shows that chastity from the Qur’anic POV is not connected to honor and control of women’s sexuality.
An even more important point is that the Qur’an unequivocaly speaks out against connecting women’s honor with their sexuality. As was previously discussed on the blog, the Qur’an makes it difficult, if not impossible, to even prosecute for zina since most people do not have intercourse in front of four witnesses. In addition, the Qur’an also forbids speculating on a woman’s sexuality. So you can’t even start spreading rumors about it. Thus, a woman’s virginity should be a non-issue for Muslims, just as a man’s virginity is never an issue. Which is why it is so disturbing that these women have to prove to their spouses and their families that they are still virgins.
One Muslim born in Macedonia said she opted for the operation to avoid being punished by her father after an eight-year relationship with her boyfriend.
“I was afraid that my father would take me to a doctor and see whether I was still a virgin,” said the woman, 32, who owns a small business and lives on her own in Frankfurt. “He told me, ‘I will forgive everything but not if you have thrown dirt on my honor.’ I wasn’t afraid he would kill me, but I was sure he would have beaten me.”
Her father doesn’t even have the right to do this. Unfortunately, Muslim clerics and leaders haven’t done much to inform Muslims of this. This was seen in the last quote of the article about the French Muslim couple who had their marriage annulled because the wife was not a virgin:
The lives of the French couple whose marriage was annulled are on hold. The Justice Ministry has sought an appeal, arguing that the decision has “provoked a heated social debate” that “touched all citizens of our country and especially women.” At the Islamic Center of Roubaix, the Lille suburb where the wedding took place, there is sympathy for the woman. “The man is the biggest of all the donkeys,” said Abdelkibir Errami, the center’s vice president. “Even if the woman was no longer a virgin, he had no right to expose her honor. This is not what Islam teaches. It teaches forgiveness.” (emphasis mine)
The vice president got it right but got it wrong at the same time. Yeah, her husband shouldn’t have put her on blast, but her honor isn’t connected to her virginity or lack thereof, nor is it the husband’s place to forgive her. We need more scholars and more Muslim leaders to emphasize this point! One, a woman’s sexuality is no one’s business! Two, it has no bearing on her honor or her worthiness as a spouse or a person.
Of course, it was disappointing that the Times did not delve into the theological issues surrounding this issue. Frankly, they had an obligation to, since they linked Islam to this issue in the article. The paper, especially with its prestige, had the obligation to consult Muslim scholars, especially jurists, on this issue–yet they took the easy road and just connected Islam to women’s sexuality simply because the women in the article are Muslim. There was no examination of culture in this practice. Islam is just assumed to be the variable causing this practice.
This article also exoticizes Muslim women once more by constantly comparing their “liberation” in Western circle vs. their “sexual repression” in Muslim circles. As mentioned earlier, this phenomena isn’t limited to Muslim women nor is it limited to women from non- Western backgrounds. Women in all patriarchal societies have to deal with their sexuality being linked to their honor. It’s a horrible double standard and one that the Qur’an certainly does not support.
Salaam ‘Alaikum//One, a woman’s sexuality is no one’s business! Two, it has no bearing on her honor or her worthiness as a spouse or a person. //It was certainly her husband’s business. A person (male or female) has the right to specify if they want to marry a virgin or not. He wanted to marry a virgin and she claimed to be one when she knew she wasn’t. So it was her husband’s business, and she dishonored herself by lying. I don’t know what kind of way that is to start a marriage, but she shouldn’t be excused for it just b/c she’s a woman. Also, it is interesting to note that “Islam” was not in the headline when the Times originally published this story, which is when I read it. I forget what it was, but there was a first edition. If you have an RSS feed, it might be in there Of course, it got a lot more play and people commenting on it and reading it after they added Islam to the headline, which is exactly what they want.
Ameen! Finally! I knew I wasn’t the only one thinking that the connections made between virginity, honor, and Muslims weren’t all that sound. I just couldn’t say it as well as the author!However, I do have a question and I wonder if any sisters here can help me out. In light of this whole virginity debacle, how can we understand a Hadith like this (and again, I do realize the inconsistency of Hadith): “Aisha asked, “O Messenger of God, tell me of yourself. If you were between the two slopes of a valley, one of which had not been grazed whereas the other had been grazed, on which would you pasture your flocks?”“”On that which had not been grazed,” replied the Prophet. “Even so,” she said, “and I am not as any other of your wives. “Everyone of them had a husband before you, except myself.” The Prophet smiled and said nothing.The silence on the Prophet’s part could very well indicate that virginity is not an issue, but the previous answer about an ungrazed pasture might indicate it is ‘preferable’. In some other versions (that I have heard, not read) the Prophet (pbuh) confirms that she is his favourite wife. In any case I have come across this one countless times, but I do not know where it is from or anything else about it. Is is possible that a Hadith like this can be misinterpreted by many people to assume that virginity (not chastity) plays a big role Muslim culture and faith? I’ve been trying to get an answer to this for ages so I’m throwing it out there hoping someone may know something about it that I don’t.Cheers!Saviya C
Excellent piece!
Thanks Duniya!
“The reason why their virginity is connected to their honor has nothing to do with Islam”… but,”the Qur’an commands chastity from women… and men”. So, it does command virginity before marriage. So, if somebody is not virgin before marriage, she or he has not obeyed the religion. That’s the dishonor. Just the same as with catolicism.As for the chastity for men, it doesn´t seem the mandate is equally applied to both sexes. The possibility of men of marry more than one woman ( leess chastity, then ) and the different severity of clothing depending of sexes are two good examples.I really admire your liberal, humanistic perspective, but I think you are terribly wrong.Regards from Spain.
umm zaid: “A person (male or female) has the right to specify if they want to marry a virgin or not.”Do they really? This is the crux of the legal quandary in the French case. The question is: which kinds of dishonesty (on the part of one of the spouses) can get a marriage annulled, and which cannot? For example, if the man had specified that he wanted to marry a naturally blonde woman, but on the wedding night he discovered that his wife had been dyeing her hair, most reasonable people would not consider that to be scope for annulment. Why, then, is a woman’s virginity different?The case has caused uproar in France for two important reasons:1) French law is ferociously secular, yet the religious affiliation of the couple whose marriage was annulled seems to have played a role in the judges’ verdict. Many people doubt that the annulment would have been awarded if the couple had been atheists, say, or Wiccans. The implication is that a person’s – and more particularly a woman’s – virginity carries disproportionate significance for Muslims.2) This view is both theologically questionable (as Faith’s excellent blog points out) and reeks of Orientalism. The judges in the case – all of whom were male – appear to have bought uncritically into a series of clichés about Islam and (female) sexuality. As a result, a woman has been publicly shamed and financially ruined by the legal system whose much trumpeted egalitarianism was specifically designed to eliminate so-called ‘cultural crimes’ such as the one committed by this woman.
Joseph, you just contradicted yourself. You seemed to think that what is important is what is mandated, not the practice of people, as regards to women, and yet you look at the practice of people, and not the mandate, in regards to men. Men and women are equally mandated and unequally held to the standard. It does apply to men too to be sexually pure, and equally so.Having said that, I also disagree with the article that sexuality has nothing to do with honor, but I am in 100% agreement about the unfairness of applying the standard unequally to men and women and in bringing it into the public sphere so much. Also, there is forgiveness, so virginity is to some extent a moot point.
Another thing that really annoys me is that Muslims around the world seem to think that the hymen is an indicatory of virginity. A lot of women break their hymen doing exercise, by using tampons, just don’t have one or have a hymen that permits penitration without tearing or bleeding. These facts seem to escape many in the Muslim world and this leads to the expensive and unnecessary use of hymneophraphy or more horrible implciations like social ostracisation, divorce or (dis)Honour(able) Killings. It is really sad in my opinion for women to have hymenophraphy because it literally creates a barrier between husband and wife in terms of opennes about past sexuality or being able to the intimate realities about her body. If a woman is sexually active before marriage in a society then she is likely to have been sexually active with men in her society so surely her husband also has a high chance of not being a virgin and this should be discussed by the couple, rather than the virginity of the woman being the only issue.
Celeritas: equating the hymen with virginity is NOT something that only Muslims do. It is world-wide assumption that encompasses all cultures, nations, and religions. It’s unfair to single Muslims out in this regard.
Zeynab: It is certainly not my opinion that only Muslims equate the hymen with virginity and I only singled out Muslims as they are the subject of this article. I should have said “Another thing that really annoys me is that everywhere around the world ther are people that seem to think that the hymen is an indicatory of virginity.” and continued from there. I really like your article and please do not think that I am attacking Muslims, as I am one myself!
The title really pissed me off. It indicates that majority of Muslim women are checked by their families to ensure that they are virgins. The examples that they used were women of North African origin. I come from a conservative family of Pakistani origin and have lived in various countries in Asia and I have never come across of looking at the wedding sheets to make sure that its stained with blood or getting a doctor to check if the woman is a virgin or not. When I told my mom about this and she is 50, she was also surprised. Unfortunately this does happen in some North African countries, however it is not limited to these Muslim countries. The practice of checking the bride is a virgin is common in South America, especially in religious Catholic communities. However, this tradition is slowly dieing out there but it is still practiced.The other thing that pissed me off about this article was that they guessed that majority of the women who went to get surgery were Muslim. They had no data to back up their conclusion other than three or four Muslim women they interviewed. I know that in United States hymenoplasty is extremely popular in the US during Valentines Day.I love show this article twists everything. A student who was interview said “In my culture, not to be a virgin is to be dirt,” since when did culture become synonymous with religion. Cause someone sure as hell forgot to give me the memo. The title show have been in _____ culture virginity is demanded for the bride. And throughout the whole article Islam should have been replaced by ________ culture. Just because someone is Muslim it does not mean that we have the same belief or value system. We are not a freaking homogeneous group. The media cannot get that through their thick heads. whew! had to get that off of my chest.
Alhumdiallah I did not find my husband to be a liar on our wedding night. I have heard too many horror stories and that would have been really horrible. Regardless of the specifics (died hair, virginity, etc.)lying is a sin and to discover that your brand new spouse is a liar on the wedding night–yeah, I can see how someone would choose to cut their losses and request an annulment–again regardless of the specifics. She LIED. Who wants to be married to a liar? Love and Peace,~Brooke AKA Ummbadier
Mariam: could you post a link to back up the idea that hymenoplasty is popular during Valentine’s Day? I’m curious about that, and I’ve never heard it.Celeritas: No hard feelings! We’re never sure about the faith of our readers, so I just wanted to make sure!
Reminds me of my marriage(sorry to harp)…my husband “lost his” when he was 13…spent all the years from then til he met me getting a leg over whenever possible. Luckily I came along and stopped all that(lucky me) at the tender age of 18…never having had sex….but I had had boyfriends. I made the mistake of telling my husband during a later convo that I had “made out” with some of my boyfriends…made out mind you…not full sexual intercourse. For the remainder of our 20 year marriage he harped back on the fact that I was immoral as a teen and therefore immoral in life…completely forgetting that he was hardly more than a male gigilo in his youth. Wheres the comparing…not to mention he was the Muslim…and I use the term lightly… while I was the immoral Western teen…and we know none of those can keep their pants on…sheesh. Anyhow…I cant help but think of all the conversations Ive heard about a couple that want to marry…the usual questions about the guy are…whats his job…what does he drive…whose his family etc….about the girl…does she wear hijab…is she seen out a lot…are there any rumors about her etc. So for the guy its about money and family…for the girl its all about morality and outward appearance…the thing that bugs me the most about all this…I have two daughters…so that means Muslims are out there talking about my girls the same as they talk about other girls…makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to think my daughters are subject to the slander and whims of complete strangers…merely because they are female living in this culture.
“The other thing that pissed me off about this article was that they guessed that majority of the women who went to get surgery were Muslim. They had no data to back up their conclusion other than three or four Muslim women they interviewed.”In France, at least, the medical profession has indicated that those demanding hymen reconstructive surgery are “essentially” Muslims of north African origin, though interestingly the article linked below notes that all ages and social classes are represented, and that in posh parts of Paris other denominations make up about 30 percent of the custom. Equally, and frighteningly, it points out that no training is given to surgeons performing this operation, and that the average cost is 3500 euros – three months’ salary for a primary school teacher, for example.http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/06/19/mon-hymen-son-honneur_1060339_3224.html#ens_id=1051592(article in French)
Salaam, Forgive me if this has already been mentioned but I think one way both Muslim men and women should establish proof of their virginity (or lack thereof) is by taking both HIV and STD tests. This is extremely necessary because it is terribly unfair for prospective marriage partners, who maintained their virginity throughout their lives, to catch any of these diseases from their once promiscuous spouses. And people with STD’s should not be allowed to marry as a way to punish them for engaging in such bad behavior.
Anonymous, it IS a good idea for people to get tested for STIs. But I take a few issues with your comment: first of all, the lack of virginity does not automatically make someone “promiscuous.” Promiscuity is defined as “casual and indiscriminate” sexual behavior. Sexuality isn’t always a black-and-white thing: it’s not as if the only two choices are virginity and promiscuity. What if someone’s spouse was a widow(er)? Or a rape survivor? Does that make them promiscuous?And your statement that people with STIs should not be allowed to marry as a way to “punish” them for their behavior is terribly offensive. What about people who contracted HIV through ways other than sex (i.e., blood transfusions)? Or innocent spouses whose husband/wife infected them (while they were married)? Are they no longer people? Should they not be allowed to have dignity, happiness, and someone who loves them? STIs are not a “punishment” that God intends for “bad people.” It’s something that can happen to ANYONE, no matter how careful and “good” s/he is.
Salaam again, Sorry I didn’t specify who I meant. When I talked about nonvirgin spouses I wasn’t talking about widows and rape survivors. I meant people who lost their virginity to premarital sex. Such individuals whether men or women should be honest and upfront about this important matter to their potential spouses. They should also be made to take STD tests to find out if their past behavior led to them becoming ill. This is important not just for their potential spouses but also for their own health and well being. Finally when I talked about not allowing such people to marry again I was talking about sexually promiscuous folks not victims of bad blood transfusions or innocent spouses. I said this should be done in order to deter people from engaging in such sexually promiscuous behavior.All too often I’ve heard stories of Muslims (mainly men) who, while studying abroad, go and sleep around with women (most of whom were fooled into believing the guy was serious about them), catch some sort of STD, then coming home to marry and infect their spouses, almost all of whom were virgins before marriage. This sort of behavior is foolish as well as life threatening and must be stopped or at least deterred so that STD’s and HIV don’t spread throughout the community.
I would also add to Zeynab’s point that having sex willingly and consensually before marriage is also not necessarily promiscuous behaviour. If one has sex with one or two partners before marriage, although discouraged religiously, is not considered promiscuous. Nor does it mean that one will get an STI. As Zeynab said, this is not a black and white issue.
I feel as if the article was trying to defend the fact that the Quran was unjustly being pointed as the casuse of a few muslim women having surgery for recovering their virginity. I don’t live in an arab society, even less asian one. I’ve never come acrossed a verse of the Quran which specifies that a muslim woman must be a virgin when getting married. I have encountered verses where it is said that to the fornicator, another fornicator and to the one who preserves himself from zina, someone who also observe chastity. So I don’t understand what is the fuss around the Quran. Only patriachal societies with patriachal laws go about asking for a woman to be a virgin till mariage but what about the man ?The Quran does not consider a male believer more favorably that a female one, so instead of focussing on the lost of muslim virgin women, the question should be, why ?