Muhammad the Liberator of Women — Page 4
4 M U H A M M A D S A W — T H E L I B E R A T O R O F W O M E N without care for their provision or welfare. Women could not give alms from their own wealth or provide financial assistance to their kith and kin without the permission of their spouse, and those husbands who sought to control their wives’ estates could not be expected to give their consent. Women were deprived from the wealth of their parents even though they were connected with them through deep emotional and loving ties – daughters were deserving of their love just as sons. After witnessing such an error, those parents that would give something to their daughters in their lifetime would see it act as a catalyst for familial strife. Sons would not take into consideration that once their parents passed away they stood to inherit all their property, instead they were sure to feel resentment that their parents give more to their sisters than them. Similarly, women were kept deprived of their husbands’ wealth despite the complete nature of their union. Distant relatives were named as heirs, but a wife could not, even though in her husband’s lifetime she was his confidant and life partner whose hard-work and effort, in no small way, contributed to his income. Elsewhere, even in instances where a wife was declared a manager to the entire property of her husband, she had no genuine claim over it; she could spend from its income, but could not use any part of it and therefore, according to her desire, was unable to participate in charitable pursuits. No matter how much a husband oppressed his wife, she could not free herself from him. Even in those societies which permitted separation with harsh conditions that most dignified woman would prefer death than this separation. For example, the condition for separation was to prove the misconduct by either party, along with proving their cruelty. A further