Maududi, Abul A’la. Purdah and the Status of Women in Islam. Trans. Al-Ash’ari. Kazi Publications, 1939. Print.

In the next set of research journal entries, I will be outlining some of the main arguments of this book (one chapter at a time), and analyzing key themes. This book was originally written in Urdu and although I am reading its English translation, I am disappointed at Maududi’s language. The reason is that he emphasizes everything in terms of sexual dimorphism: man is this…woman is that… His chauvinistic viewpoint is inevitably expressed throughout the book.

Chapter 1: Nature of the Problem

The first chapter sets the tone for later arguments in favor of upholding a strict segregation of the sexes. I have briefly sketched out Maududi’s main argument.

1. Despite making considerable advancements, humans don’t have definite answers in any field, including the sciences.
2. Complex phenomenon is not understood accurately because of human’s inability to see all facets of a problem in one picture/analysis.
3. In order for humans to make sense of the world, first, they have to understand themselves, which is not possible if they revert to extremes. What does he mean by extremes?
4. To illustrate the concept of extremes, Maududi delves into describing the status of women. He states that women are either reduced to the position of maids or elevated to the levels of immoral prominence to become “Devil’s agent.” These are the two extremes, which the chapter title indicates as “nature of the problem.”
5. He concludes the chapter by arriving at, “…the free intermingling of the sexes brings in its wake a flood of obscenity, licentiousness and sexual perversion, which ruin the morals of the community.” His proposed solution to avoid the two extremes is purdah/veil, segregation of the sexes or seclusion of women from men.

I will now raise objections to points 4 and 5 as they are directly concerned with the status of women and have underlying assumptions that can be challenged.

1. Since Maududi’s conclusion is something based upon his experiences, one would expect a rather elaborate view on the status of women; after all, life is complex. However, his observation to categorize women’s role in two neat labels of “maids” or “Devil’s agent” shows us an oversimplified and an incomplete picture. Ignoring a whole range of the spectrum – in terms of division of labor – is silly. It is not as if Maududi collected empirical evidence on the status of women in Pakistan and has therefore arrived at such a conclusion.
2. Sure humans are highly social animals, but we are also what Aristotle correctly described: rational! Maududi’s prediction of chaotic sexual anarchy is unfounded. It presumes that we do not control over ourselves and that we will destroy order by a “flood of obscenity.”
3. Maududi’s solution, in itself, is an extreme view. Seclusion of women from public domain undermines the whole notion of being a productive and a dignified citizen of society. It denies women the opportunity to develop their intellectual and professional aspirations.
4. He is placing the burden of maintaining a strict social structure, i.e. segregation, on women. What exactly justifies that is not mentioned.