5.3. Women in the Law

When a woman suffers loss or damage, she is entitled to the same compensation as would be accorded to a man under identical circumstances. When a woman is found guilty of a civil offence, she will be sentenced to the same punishment as would a man.

(As for) the adulteress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes..., (Quran 24:2)

The above sentence is formulated in a very (manipulative) interpretative way: „The judicial administration of justice draws no distinction between men and women„ leaving the reader with the impression that the law is equal for both men and women. Of course, this is not what is written down.

At this point, Linda extends her discourse to include certain cases of loss and damage.




Linda could not have picked a better verse. She proves on the ground of one of the most cruel verses from the Quran that men and women are equal. Whoever has witnessed the result of these 100 lashes in Saudi-Arabia or in Iran can testify to that.

Waarom zouden we hen verwijten dat zij hun godsdienst beleven? Neen in Saoedi-Arabië zijn het geen extremisten, zij passen gewoon de Koran toe.

Why would we reproach them for practising their religion? No, they are not extremists in Saudi-Arabia..., they merely act according to the Quran.

Moreover, with one exception, also the testimony of a man and a woman is judged to be equal. Since this point is subject to misunderstandings, we discuss it here in some detail.

There is only one exception in de Quran to this general rule of equality in the matter of bearing witness, namely in one well-described specific case where it pertains to testimony given in financial transaction cases:

What this verse certainly does not establish is that women are inferior to men. Nor is it proclaimed that "in general" the testimony of a woman is of less worth than that of a man, as the afore-mentioned verse 24:6-9 establishes the rule that their testimony shall be treated as  equal.

The fact is that, in financial matters, the male witness, acting from the financial obligation that is part and parcel of his general obligation to provide care for his wife (family), is with certainty familiar and conversant with this topic, while the female witness in this specific case may, or possibly may not, be at all conversant with the complexities of financial management and administration, given that the said obligation does not rest on her shoulders.

It is because of the difference in the degree of familiarity with, and understanding of, the topic, that the model might conceivably give rise to a possible imbalance. Avoidance of complications arising from such a conceivable unfamiliarity is the only reason why an exception is introduced into the general principle. In this way, involuntary inaccuracies and injustices created because of a possible (but likewise uncertain) deficiency in knowledge of the subject matter on the part of the woman may be obviated, both in the case of testimony directly pertaining to the financial transactions themselves and in legal procedures resulting from them.

To the extent that more and more women are participating in economic life, obviously the whole argument that makes this exception a necessity is becoming less and less cogent.


It is irrelevant who concludes the financial transaction, man or woman; both claim the same rights under the law. The verse deals only and solely with the witnesses in this specific case, not with the individuals that actually conduct the transaction. A business agreement can therefore be concluded just as well by a woman as by a man, in both cases to be accepted as being of equal value. Also when two women conclude a business agreement, or a man and a woman, or two men, they can call upon the testimony of one man or two women. As "business women" or "business managers", women are wholly the equals of men. This then proves once again that the verse does not aim at portraying women as inferior or as (financial) incompetents. The verse is solely inspired by the principle of caution since male and female witnesses under the model cannot with certainty be assumed to possess the same needed knowledge of the topic in casu.

“Misunderstandings” about Islam do indeed abound. It appears that, in many cases, Allah has rather muddled his messages.

Linda does that quite often, that is turning one verse into a general rule or principle to make Islam look good. Also in this case, learned scholars think the opposite.

The example proffered to prove that the testimony given by man and woman is, in principle, equal, is misleading since they are not external witnesses in this case, but rather the parties involved, without any other witnesses.

The Quran verse quoted demonstrates one of the problems in Islam, namely the blending of religion and jurisprudence. Religion ought to invite honesty. In this instance, the Quran proposes the procedure how a woman should lie to avoid being stoned for adultery.

The quoted verse likewise illustrates the discriminatory aura versus women that permeates Islam in general and the Quran in particular. When an example is given of bad behaviour, it is generally the woman who did it. Also in this case. As if only women commit adultery and men do not.

What is the procedure when a woman accuses her husband of adultery? The Quran remains mum on this point and the Muslim believers are left to figure this out by and for themselves.

With respect to the exception to the merit of the woman’s testimony in cases of financial transactions, alas, Linda is left on her own somewhere out in left field. Both the Hadith as well as the Shariah start from the premise that the principle of inferiority of female testimony applies in all instances. Verse 2.282 is therefore the general rule, not 24.6-9.

This Hadith illustrates how Muhammad himself interpreted the Quran! Going by the above-mentioned Hadith, the need to have 2 women as witnesses versus only one man is, according to him, because of a woman’s deficiency in intelligence. Thus, in his opinion, a woman’s intelligence is not just of a lower kind; it is plainly and simply defective.

And no, no mention is made of the fact that this exception is confined to „one well-described and specific case”, namely financial transactions. Otherwise, the legalist Mohammed would have added this.

There is more. Verse 5.106 mentions in the case of drawing up a last will and testament the presence of 2 witnesses, two „just men “; in this instance then, women cannot even testify.

In the Quran and the Hadith, no other cases involving external witnesses are found, and 2.282 is accepted as the general rule in such instances.

Whoever fails to see in verse 2.282 the notion that the woman is deemed inferior to the man - and certainly when it comes to financial dealings - is likely to be receptive to the idea that the earth is flat. A woman is liable to make a mistake and needs a second woman to help her out, but a man does not err.



Linda, what exactly is going on? You said earlier that the woman is able to manage her money on her own, may possibly run her own business, and that her husband has no right to interfere in this, and now we are told that this same woman is not really all that competent in such matters ‘since she is not burdened with the obligation and, hence, the experience, to provide care for her family’. Are you then suggesting that the woman had better entrust her money to her husband since he, well-tempered by his obligation to provide care, can be trusted to manage her affairs “with certainty”? Are you saying that it is, indeed, somewhat irresponsible to allow a woman with no proven financial background to administer her own money and assets?

We, members of the Movement of Belgian Ex-Muslims are outraged by the fact that the Belgian authorities via the University of Ghent and the “CENTRE for ISLAM in EUROPE” are funding people to whitewash viewpoints that are ostensibly humiliating to, and discriminatory against, women. What is worse, these viewpoints are publicly voiced by a Flemish woman, e.g., Linda Bogaert, who, we do not doubt, is educated and intelligent. To us, it is one more proof of the depth of the descent that threatens people as soon as they get themselves entangled in Islamic logic.

Furthermore, Linda transposes events at the time when the Quran was revealed into the 21st century and hence confuses and misleads the reader. It is, indeed, to the credit of Muhammad that he emphasized the need to conclude clear contacts in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

But we digress. Let us return to the context wherein the Quran was revealed. The idea of “complexity of financial management” is a bit of a joke when considered against the background of that time. People bought and sold, they lent or borrowed money, case pertaining, and that was it. The witnesses saw simply that Ahmed gave five pieces of gold to Mustafa in return for Mustafa’s delivering a bale of dates three months later.

Surely no need for us here the conjure up visions of a complex tax administration with deductions, refunds, exemptions, VAT declarations, leasing contracts, five-year interest rates subject to annual adjustments, futures, term contracts ... ?

Linda makes it appear as if such financial complexities were common currency at that time and that all of this proved just too much for a poor woman. Muhammad’s first wife was a business woman and took care of her affairs on her own. Maybe she was successful in this because of the fact that she had undertaken the obligation to provide for him?

In all of this, Linda’s contentions make light of and even insult our intelligence. Enough said. No further comment is needed. We leave it to reader to judge for himself or herself the absurdity of her cited argumentation.

Summary : women are allowed to conduct financial transactions for their own account but it might be dangerous to let them act on their own as witnesses without the assistance of a second woman. How truly pathetic is this!

And we have in the meantime learned that in testamentary matters (5.106), the woman’s testimony is even considered worthless.

What for heaven’s sake has the right to free expression of an opinion to do with the mutual relationship between men and women?

The right to freely express an opinion is in Islam a relative concept. Two individuals that paid with their lives for criticizing Muhammad are Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf and Asma Bint Marwan, a man and a woman. Their story is told in the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. Mohammed had his critics killed regardless of their sex. This is indeed good evidence that Islam treats both men and women critical of his person without discrimination.

The quoted verse 60:12 has no connection whatsoever with voting right but rather deals with women who converted to Islam and came to swear an oath of loyalty to Muhammad. Likewise, there was no question about electing a leader. It rather was a matter of joining an existing leader in power, in this instance Muhammad, who was the enemy at war with their own clan and remained in a permanent state of war with them. This was therefore a matter of treason by these “believing women” against their own people. Worse still, Surah 60 deals with a treaty with the population of Mecca that was unilaterally broken by Allah and, hence, by Muhammad. So the verse is about high treason and the breaking of a contract. And since this is good for Islam, it is therefore not morally objectionable, rather the opposite.
And once again, Linda has managed to present us with yet another verse taken out of its context.


The mentioned verse is one that puts the spotlight on a problematic aspect of Islam, namely drawing a clear distinction between believers and non-believers. Allah has created mankind and separated the people in two camps, the believers and the unbelievers. And Allah stands ranged on the side of the believers. Surah 9, from which the verse in question is taken, calls for the killing of the polytheists, (9.5) and for fighting the Jews and the Christians until they are willing to subject themselves to the authority of Islam (9.29).

Mentioning this Hadith is truly hilarious. The „needs“ in question refer to “going to the toilet”. In those times, toilets were unknown nor were chamber pots or buckets or their equivalent kept inside the house. People simply retreated to a secluded spot outdoors and did their business. And what is it that Islam teaches here? That women were allowed out of the house to do what they sorely needed to do, relieve themselves!

However, Linda once again has muddied the context. The following Hadith explains what it is all about: Bukhari (1.4.148):

The quoted Hadith is therefore not at all what Linda makes it appear. The Hadith simply deals with the fact that when women go outside to relieve themselves, they ought to make themselves wholly unrecognisable, even in the dark. A good Muslima makes sure that she will be incognito, even to acquaintances. This is rather different from Linda’s

The Hadith further implies that, in principle, women ought to remain at home unless they have a very good reason to go out. That they even have to have permission to go outside to the toilet is a clear sign of that restriction.

End of Part 5