Week 3

I extremely disliked the reading for the week. I usually don't get passionate about what I read, but this just upset me very much. There is just so much bias and one-sided-ness, I don't even know where to begin. She writes as a Muslim, but some of the claims she makes are clearly out of the fold of Islam at the most basic level. For example, she states, "Not only have the sacred texts always been manipulated, but the manipulation of them is a structural characteristic of the practice of power in Muslim societies" (Mernissi 9). The Qur'an is a sacred Muslim text, and it is a fundamental belief in Islam that it is infallible. It is true that hadith have been fabricated, but it is a gross exaggeration that it is "a structural characteristic of the practice of power in Muslim societies." Mernissi's text is filled with minority opinions, exaggerations, and plainly inaccurate statements.

Another passage that disturbed me was her entire commentary of the illegitimacy of Abu Bakra as a narrator of hadith. I've studied how hadith is narrated and the extent to which the scholars have gone to confirm the accuracy of each hadith, particularly those in Bukhari. Claiming that the hadith is fabricated is completely unacceptable based on the science of hadith. I can appreciate the mention of context but the way it is interpreted is faulty.

The other hadith narrator that is attacked by Mernissi as being misogynistic is Abu Hurayrah. It is entirely irrelevant that his name means "Father of the Little Female Cat", and the fact that the author goes into such detail about it is so misleading. It is simply a nickname given to the man by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a term of endearment for his companion. This reminded me about the first week's readings on Orientalism that focused on certain aspects of the Arab culture and root words to depict Islam as backward and civilized yet again.