By: Ustadh Ubaydullah EvansResident Scholar, ALIM 
I would describe myself as a casual fan of tennis. However, I thought it was common knowledge that Serena Williams, the recently retired American tennis legend, is one of the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time). So when I mentioned this to some die-hard tennis fans (all of whom were men), I was surprised to hear them reference the controversial statement of John Mcenroe, who said, “If Serena played on the male circuit, she would be like 700th in the world.”
I was thinking: That might be true but how does that factor into an assessment of her greatness?
When two people perform the same task but in distinctly different classes, a head-to-head assessment is meaningless. Take boxing for instance, fighters compete in weight classes. This means that a welterweight (147 lb) champion like Floyd Mayweather Jr. would never compete against a heavyweight (200-225 lb) champion like Muhammad Ali. When assessing their careers, no knowledgeable boxing fan would mention that the smaller man wouldn’t stand a chance against the bigger man. Or worse yet, no one would mention that the welterweight would be ranked 700th if he had to fight heavyweights. The expression “pound-for-pound” (or “all physical disparities being equal”) is usually used in such comparisons to denote that greatness is assessed by determining who was more effective in their weight class. A head to head comparison never enters the conversation.
I pondered; something like this is so obvious when comparing two men–who differ in physical stature–while competing in the same field. How does this logic evade ostensibly smart people when comparing a man and a woman who compete in the same field? For some, this specious “Serena would be 700th…” reasoning is a deliberate attempt to make women feel the brunt of their demand for equality. Clearly, this line of reasoning is faulty. Serena is unquestionably an all-time great. However, I think the larger conundrum is relevant. Does an unqualified pursuit of equality always serve the end we want? In the example above, the status of an all-time great (male or female) was relegated to being just a female great in the name of equality. In a similar vein, I was perusing the photojournalism work Humans of New York when I happened upon the profile of one man who declared, “I’m a true feminist. I believe in the complete equality of men and women. So if I’m on the 6 Train with a woman during rush hour and there’s only one seat left, she better know I’m going for it!” This statement, while lighthearted, captures an important but often overlooked aspect of equality. When we invoke equality we aspire to establish fairness. However, it’s often overlooked that an emphasis on equality will also produce competition. Stated differently, once a modus operandi of equality is established, competition becomes the only legitimate means of justifying disparities in power, privilege, rank, reward, etc. In an article entitled Equal To?, the late philosopher Eva Brann asserts that the pursuit of equality can be misleading. For starters, equality usually entails one group or individual aspiring to a standard that is represented by another group or individual. The push for equality in the workspace, for instance, almost singularly involves advocacy for women. Fairness resides in creating an environment in which women are treated like men—men, on the other hand, are fine just the way they are. To be sure, many women are willing to accept this Faustian bargain in the interest of professional advancement and self-actualization. However, things get more complicated when this ethic is transposed to personal and romantic relationships. Anecdotally, I’ve heard many women express frustration with the importation of a “human resources” culture into their family lives. Whereas the modus operandi expected in professional settings is equality (fairness) and its concomitant, competition. The expectation of these women in a romantic/familial context is accommodation, consideration, care, mercy, gentleness, service, clemency, etc. This month, I had the pleasure of conversing with author and teacher Umm Zakiyyah on the ALIM Frames platform. Our discussion, entitled, How Compassionate Leadership Can Save Our Community, explored a bold, scripturally-based approach to male-female relationships. Namely, that fairness between men and women in professional settings should be premised on equality. Domestic and marital contexts, however, reveal something different. She contends that asserting male leadership while subsequently holding it to compassionate Prophetic standards is a more effective means of establishing the harmony and satisfaction that both men and women want in our relationships. Referencing as a point of departure, the verse: “It is out of Allah’s mercy that you ‘O Prophet’ have been gentle with them. Had you been cruel or hard-hearted, they would have certainly abandoned you. So pardon them, ask Allah’s forgiveness for them, and consult with them in conducting matters. Once you make a decision, put your trust in Allah. Surely Allah loves those who trust Him.” [3:159] Umm Zakiyyah goes on to state that true male leadership doesn’t locate value in women according to how thoroughly they embody the standards of men. Rather women must be valued in their uniqueness. Returning to the verse, she maintains that the foundation of compassionate leadership is gentleness. Anything done with callousness or abrasiveness–even if rooted in truth–is unworthy of acceptance. The verse continues, compassionate leaders don’t respond to intransigence, with retaliation or defensiveness but rather with clemency and penitence. And finally, even after a compassionate leader recognizes the mistakes or shortcomings of his partner, he still maintains a respect for her agency and the uniqueness of her perspective. And he doesn’t make any decision that might impact them without consulting with her. I appreciate Umm Zakiyyah’s comprehensive reading of the verse. Nearly as impressive, though, was the insightful suggestion that this compassionate ideal might be frustrated by an ethic of equality. In other words, when men and women proceed on a basis of sameness, our relationships can unintentionally assume a character of competition. And like all good competitions, there will be a single set of rules and winners and losers. Further, the party that emerges as more powerful enjoys a presumption of greater merit. So there is no need for special consideration for the disadvantaged party. The leader calls the shots, for example, because he or she makes more money or pays the bills. Conversely, a culture that views leadership as a God-given responsibility and evaluates it on the basis of compassion, humbles those who aspire to lead. Perhaps men and women would be happier when less time is spent flexing, posturing, and attempting to assert priority over one another. “...and men have a degree over women…” [2:228] This is a negation of equality (not in relation to God but in relation to each other). But as is stated in exegesis of Ibn Abbas, the most authoritative Quranic commentator of the early period, “it is not a degree of dominance or priority that men have over women. Rather, it is a rank of service.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
stay connected
@alimprogram
PO Box 871785 Canton, MI 48187
(734) 956-0698
(734) 956-0698
2025 © American Learning Institute for Muslims. All rights reserved.
ALIM is a 501(c)(3) organization. All donations are tax deductible. Our EIN is 38-3633579.
Zelle: [email protected]
Terms of Service | Privacy Guidelines
ALIM is a 501(c)(3) organization. All donations are tax deductible. Our EIN is 38-3633579.
Zelle: [email protected]
Terms of Service | Privacy Guidelines