Interfaith dialogues can help people not only better see and appreciates the commonalities and differences between various faiths, but to have people of those faiths discern problems they have in common, problems which they can engage together, hoping that by doing so, they can find a solution to them which will help all involved. We find this happening many times, such as in the way feminist Muslim theologian Riffat Hassan saw her work with Jews and Christians helped her see they all share a common problem with misogyny, which means, they could and should work together to overcome misogyny in their respective faith traditions. Indeed, she saw it was something they held in common because of the myths and legends (and traditional interpretations given to them) they share have led many in all three faiths to promote misogynous ideologies such as the notion that men are superior to women:
As a result of further study and reflection I came to perceive that in the Islamic, as well as in the Jewish and the Christian tradition, there are three theological assumptions on which the superstructure of men’s alleged superiority to women has been erected. These three assumptions are: 1) That God’s primary creation is man, not a woman, since women is believed to have been created from man’s rib, hence is derivative and secondary ontologically; 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 regarded 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.[1]
Hassan, knowing the various kinds of misogynist takes found in the Islamic tradition, suggests many of them are derivative in nature, that they came from Jewish and Christian sources rather than from something revealed by Muhammad. But, to be clear, those influences came more from Christian interpretations of Jewish texts than Jewish ones, among which, the way many Christians interpreted the Genesis creation stories. She believed that it is odd that such an influence can be found in the background of Islamic thought because Islamic tradition has a different take on the creation of humanity, one which has the original person having both feminine and masculine aspects to them (something, to be sure, which is not unknown in Jewish and Christian interpretations, as well as philosophical interpretations of creation, as can be seen in the writings of Plato):
An analysis of the Qur’anic description of creation shows how the Qur’an uses both feminine and masculine terms and imagery to describe the creation of humanity from a single source. That God’s original creation was undifferentiated humanity and not either man or woman (who appeared simultaneously at a subsequent time) is implicit in a number of Qur’anic passages. [2]
It is a rather forced reading of the Qur’an, and with it, the Genesis creation story, that has enabled some from the Abrahamic religious traditions to suggest that women are inferior to men, that women bear the primary responsibility to the fall, and that women, ultimately, were not created for their own good, but merely for the pleasure and service of men. Hassan is right to say we can find these positions found throughout the Western tradition, but it is important to note, it has not been the only take, and it is important to learn other takes to help us all overcome the terrible interpretations which have been handed down leading to a misogynistic understanding of the creation story. We must also listen to those who criticize those bad takes, those like Archbishop Raya who suggested that such interpretations were influenced by the culture at large, that is, by various “oriental” modes of thought which infiltrated tradition: “The disgust felt for women owed its origin to Oriental modes of thought and the belief that the body was evil; therefore anything that produces bodies (that is, women) were doubly evil.”[3]
It is vital for all three faith traditions to move the faithful beyond any suggestion that women are inferior, that they are solely responsible for the fall, and that they are, at best, derivative in nature to men. We need to understand the creation story, and its talk about the fall of humanity, is meant to show us how all of us are joined together in the fall, not just Eve (or Adam and Eve). We certainly must not understand the creation story as literal history. Inter-religious dialogue confirms misogyny is not only a Christian problem, but a problem found throughout all major religious traditions. It is why such dialogue is important, for, by engaging it, we might hear someone coming from outside our own faith tradition offering us the wisdom we have not considered that can help us forge a new, better path in our own tradition. And, when dealing with the way Jews, Christian, and Muslims have historically dealt with women, and the way women were often unjustly marginalized, women are not the ones who will be helped when we overcome misogynistic takes of our faiths:
In my judgment, the importance of developing what the West calls “feminist theology” in the context of the Islamic tradition is paramount today in order to liberate not only Muslim women, but also Muslim men, from unjust structures and systems of thought which make a peer relationship between men and women impossible.[4]
In this way, interfaith dialogues give us an opportunity to promote the “essence” of feminist spirituality as described by Sandra Schnieders:
The essence of feminist spirituality, then, is a reclaiming of female power beginning with the likeness of women to the divine, the rehabilitation of the body as the very locus of that divine likeness, and the right of women to participate in the shaping of religion and culture, i.e., of the realm of “spirit.” [5]*
Christianity can and should address these issues in many ways, not just in dialogue with others. Christians must examine their own doctrines and dogmas, and the way they have been misunderstood and abused to promote misogyny. Christians must work to overcome the misogyny of the past, and they must do so using the same doctrines and dogmas which have otherwise been abused, starting with the incarnation by showing how the incarnation itself leads to the promotion of women. That is, by way of the incarnation, God shows us that our body is a good to be accepted and not something to be shunned or despised, and so women, who give birth, must not be shunned or despised. Why is this even an issue? Because Gnostic thought suggested women were inferior, tied more to material creation, thanks to their role in human reproduction, and while Gnosticism has been officially repudiated, Gnostic influences have affected Christian thought, and with them, misogyny followed. But it is not just Gnosticism, but also the way men have wanted to use Genesis to justify lording it over women, suggesting women, in some way, was made for their own pleasure; such takes undermines the dignity of women, and when they, in some form of another, are encountered, must be summarily rejected. For it is imperative Christians take an active role in rejecting misogyny, especially as Christianity has helped let it thrive, contrary to proper the spirit of revelation.
[1] Riffat Hassan, “Women in Muslim Culture: Some Critical Theological Reflections” in Muslim-Christian Dialogue: Promise And Problems. Ed. M Darrol Bryant and S.A. Ali (St Paul, MN: Paragon House, 1998), 190.
[2] Riffat Hassan, “Women in Muslim Culture: Some Critical Theological Reflections,” 191
[3] Archbishop Joseph Raya, The Abundance of Love: The Incarnation and Byzantine Tradition (Combermere, ON: Madonna House Publications, 1989; 3rd ed.: 2016), 118.
[4] Riffat Hassan “Women in Muslim Culture: Some Critical Theological Reflections,” 200.
[5] Sandra M. Schneiders, Beyond Patching. Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 2004), 80-81.
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In