One should not be surprised of this comparison undertaken between the tradition of the Prophet and the Judaeo-Christian myth because the hadith in question was elaborated in the context of a series of exhortations undertaken by the Prophet to his companions during the departing pilgrimage, where the topic itself was the recommendation to men to treat women well. The end of this hadith is the famous warning directed at believers: ‘Be good towards your women.’ The use of the imagery of the rib – and it is worth restating that the Prophet is not referring to Adam’s rib – is in fact a metaphor, used according to an allegorical linguistic style much appreciated by the Arabs of the time, in order to advise men to show sensitivity and kindness towards women. It is important to specify here that the said hadiths were not evoked by the Prophet in order to explain the biological aspect of human creation, as some contemporary7 Muslim thinkers rightly point out, rather the objective was to challenge certain sexist traditions according to a very pedagogical strategy.
The Prophet, as was his habit, sought to inculcate in his companions the rules of propriety and consideration towards women and, thus, to soften the harsh norms of the era.
It is, therefore, obvious that any interpretation which draws from the hadiths in order to advance arguments in favour of the secondary creation of women and which attempts to diminish the status of women is necessarily erroneous and must be considered as being in opposition to the fundamental principles of the Qur’an and of the teachings of the Prophet.
This type of allegation, which is at the root of an entire universal heritage of the depreciation (discrediting?) of women, has long justified – and continues to do so in many cultures – a logic of oppression and humiliation of women.
A scholar as famous as Imam al-Razi believes that, in the following verse, can be found the evidence that women were created only in order to satisfy men’s needs:
And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates out of your own kind, so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are signs indeed for people who think! (al-Rūm 30: 21)
‘There is proof in this verse that the creation of women is similar to that of animals, of plants and all other types of blessings[…] The creation of women is therefore a true blessing for us (men) and they have, therefore, essentially been created for us[…] This is explained through the fact that women are weak by their physical constitution, that they are foolish and puerile like children … ’8
If women were created by and for men, this confirms their structural inferiority and the requirement of their submissiveness. This type of assertion constitutes a recurring theme in all classical religious discourse and ends up outlining an ideological framework within which the subordination of women is incorporated into the language of the Sacred.
It is saddening to see the extent to which these scholars, who were negatively influenced by their socio-cultural environment and certain previous religious traditions, backed through their respective interpretations by an entire body of literature demeaning women and justifying the concept of male domination over women, in the name of Islam. From this, one understands how the vast majority of the religious arguments which legitimize the subordination of women draw their inspiration from this type of interpretation of Qur’anic verses, interpretations which with time are considered as somehow part of dogma, even confining the Qur’an itself to a secondary position.
It is well known that within other religious traditions, the indictment of the first woman, as being the one who led Adam – man – to be thrown out of Paradise, is obvious and this image of a temptress is undeniable. An entire legend full of imagery, with the forbidden tree, the snake and Eve, symbols of temptation and the fall from Eden, have been transmitted from generation to generation as being part of immutable religious concepts. None of these previous suppositions can be found in the Qur’an, not even in the form of a veiled reference.
Nonetheless, famous Muslim exegetes refer to these types of commentaries in their different works of tafasīr.9 In fact, an exegete as famous as al-Qurṭubi states in his commentary that it was Eve who succumbed first to Satan and that it was she who led to the downfall of Adam, thus becoming the first source of temptation for men!10
Yet, nowhere in the Qur’an does it incriminate the first woman in humanity. The Qur’anic verses couldn’t be clearer: It was the first human couple which was responsible and it has never been a question, according to revelation, of blaming one or the other.
(And We said: ‘O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden, and eat freely thereof, both of you, whatever you may wish; but do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers.’) al-Baqarah 2: 35
And it was both of them who succumbed to the temptation of Satan:
(But Satan caused them both to stumble therein, and thus brought about the loss of their erstwhile state. And so We said: ‘Down with you, [and be henceforth] enemies unto one another; and on earth you shall have your abode and your livelihood for a while!’) al-Baqarah 2: 36
Then the Qur’an describes how both of them, regretting their disobedience and dismayed at their fall from grace, implored God in order that He might forgive them.
That error, a symbol of the first act of human disobedience, was absolutely absolved by the Creator. It is one of the core concepts of Islam according to which the rehabilitation of human beings is total and entirely assumed by the Creator. There is no trace of the concept of the infamous original sin, weighing heavily on the whole of humanity, an irreparable error as it is described in the Christian tradition. According to the Islamic understanding, the forbidden tree is a symbol heavy with significance, designed to test this first couple of human beings, Adam and Eve. In the face of their clear-sightedness, their lucidity and their repentance, Allah forgives them …
And from there, a sort of alliance between God and human beings was sealed via the intermediary of humanity’s first couple … No original sin but rather a sort of original pact between God and His creatures.11
That first erring has, therefore, not been written eternally into humanity’s destiny as it has been transmitted in other religious traditions. God Says:
And whatever [wrong] any human being commits rests upon himself alone […] (al-Anʿām 6: 164)
There is no notion of sin in the Christian sense of the term, nor eternal Divine punishment with its concepts of guilt, suffering or redemption.
The story of Adam and Eve, as it was interpreted in the biblical tradition and by extension in other religious traditions, is far removed from that advocated by the Qur’anic text.
In fact, in tracing the creation of these first human beings, the Qur’an depicts what could be referred to as the first communal human experience symbolized by these two first creatures. Firstly, God honoured the human being by referring to him as - ‘khalifa’12 – on Earth or the ‘legatee’ of His knowledge. Then, Adam and Eve were raised to the ranks of ‘learned beings’, among those who ‘know’, in front of whom the angels – perfect beings – prostrated.
The angels prostrated in front of this human creature because God inculcated knowledge in him! Knowledge is at the root of creation … Humans are above angels, despite the perfection of the latter, due to knowledge, reason and intelligence, qualities inherent to human beings.
The prostration of angels in front of human beings is the revelation of humanism in all its splendour as stated by the great Iranian thinker Ali Shariati13
These