A Way Beyond the Rainbow

#68 - Between Toxic Masculinity and Radical Feminism

January 14, 2022 Waheed Jensen Season 5 Episode 3
A Way Beyond the Rainbow
#68 - Between Toxic Masculinity and Radical Feminism
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

In this episode, we tackle the notions of toxic masculinity and discuss the waves of opposing feminist movements with their ripple effects on the global community. We also highlight the importance of the Prophetic example in paving the way for God-conscious, healthy masculinity.

What are the "Man Rules" and "Woman Rules" that we take for granted, and how do they contribute to toxic masculinity in our cultures? Are gender differences socially constructed? What does Islam say about the similarities and differences between the male and the female? How can we reclaim our masculinity in light of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)'s Sunnah and Divine Revelation? These and other questions are explored in this episode.

References used and resources mentioned in the episode:
- A Man's Way through Relationships: Learning to Love and Be Loved by Dan Griffin
- A Man's Way through the Twelve Steps by Dan Griffin
- Dan Griffin's podcast, "The Man Rules Podcast"
- Helping Men Recover: A Man's Workbook, Special Edition for the Criminal Justice System by Stephanie S. Covington, Dan Griffin and Rick Dauer
- Boys will be Boys - Gender identity issues by Sh. Abdal-Hakim Murad
- Fall of the Family by Sh. Abdal-Hakim Murad
- Islam, Irigaray, and the Retrieval of Gender by Sh. Abdal-Hakim Murad
- "Gender, Sexuality, Morality and Identity" webinar by Dr. Sharif El-Tobgui
- Addressing the Specific Behavioral Health Needs of Men by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
- Feminist movements and waves of feminism explained here and here
- “Be a Man!” Constructing Prophetic Masculinity by Yaqeen Institute
- Talks with Gabriel Al-Romaani: The Prophet of Masculinity and How to be a Real Man

Waheed 00:37
Assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi ta’ala wa barakatuh, and welcome back to “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, this podcast series dedicated to Muslims experiencing same-sex attractions who want to live a life true to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and Islam. I'm your host Waheed Jensen, thank you so much for joining me in today's episode.

In the previous two episodes, as you guys remember, we spoke about the history and politics of the gay liberation movement and how far things have progressed in a few decades. We spoke about agenda politics, the paradigm of identity and civil rights, the role of media in paving the way for such shifts to take place, as well as the influence of the LGBT movement on religion and theology, schools and educational systems, corporations and businesses, major psychological institutions and access to therapy, as well as other aspects of life. 

In today’s episode, inshaAllah, we will talk about the notions of masculinity and femininity, by examining the ripple effects of what is referred to as “toxic masculinity”, as well as the opposing forces of radical feminist movements. How is all of this related to our discussions on gender, sexuality, healing and growth? How can we understand all of this in light of our Islamic paradigm and worldview? We will explore this in today’s episode inshaAllah. I will also add many resources in the episode description, so make sure to check them out.

I would like to start this episode with a quote by Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi who said, “The Prophet said that women totally dominate men of intellect and possessors of hearts. But ignorant men dominate women, for they are shackled by an animal ferocity. They have no kindness, gentleness or love, since animality dominates their nature. Love and kindness are human attributes; anger and sensuality belong to the animals. She is the radiance of God, she is not your beloved. She is a creator - you could say that she is not created.”

02:41
A father who yells, throws things and creates hell at home. A brother who bullies his siblings. A manager who abuses his position and sexually assaults women. A father who abandoned his family and responsibilities and left the mother in charge of the household. An older brother who was forced to grow up beyond his years and take care of his mom and siblings, as the father who, despite being physically present at home, is completely useless. The high school bully. The gangsters in the neighborhood. The men who physically, emotionally and sexually abuse women and children. And the list goes on and on. We of all people know the ripple effects of the pain that all of this generates. A “man”/”rajul”, instead of being a safe haven for those under his care, his image becomes irreparably shattered. All of these and others are examples of toxic masculinity.

Sociologist, author and expert on men’s relationships and masculinity, Dan Griffin, studied what is known as the “Man Rules”. To understand these “Man Rules”, he presents a story of two fish swimming in the ocean when a third fish swims up to them and says, “Hello, gents. How’s the water?” and he swims away. The two fish look at each other and say, “What the hell is water?” The water in this story represents the reality in which we are constantly immersed and of which we are so often unaware. We grew accustomed to the reality that men can do this but can’t do that, that real boys and real men are like this but not that. 

We’re taught that men don’t cry, men don’t lose control, men don’t ask for help, men don’t show emotion, men aren’t weak, men don’t back down, men aren’t vulnerable, men can have as much sex as they want, and so on. And there are much more of course. No matter where you go in the world, these are inherent messages in almost every culture, right? It’s like the water around the fish; we’re immersed in it, we don’t realize it exists. We take it for granted. But unlike water which is necessary for the survival of the fish, these “Man Rules” are toxic and damaging to our lives.

Unfortunately, such messages are internalized by boys, and when they grow up and become men, they further propagate these messages without even realizing. And these beliefs give rise to what is known as “toxic masculinity”. When men adhere to these rules, it really stunts our emotional reaction to ourselves and the ability to share emotions with others, and this is detrimental to our well-being and contributes to us behaving in harmful ways towards our significant others, family members, and even other men. And this contributes to more hurt and pain in the lives of those around us. 

Such toxic dynamics are part of many family dynamics that we spoke about throughout this podcast, from early episodes until season 4 when we explored them in depth as they contribute to complex trauma. Pain generates pain, and it ends up becoming a vicious cycle that feeds on itself. 

And just like “Man Rules”, there are “Women Rules” that people also take for granted. Always be beautiful. Always be thin, but not too thin. Don’t be assertive or pushy. Be emotional but not too emotional. Be quiet and nice. Be selfless and take care of everyone in your life. Don’t say no. And countless other messages. Whereas “Man Rules” propagate a culture of toxic masculinity, “Women Rules” create an environment of suffocation, intimidation and helplessness. Together, such rules become a dangerous combo, and in a pressure cooker that’s been boiling for so long, the result is nothing less than an explosion.

A basic law of physics states that every action has an equal but opposite reaction. When many family systems are broken and have resulted in deep wounds and pain, many of us will protest against the entire family unit and call for it to be abolished. When fathers and brothers are evil tyrants, a common reaction would be to reject masculinity altogether and call for the emasculation of men. When prescribed gender roles are so suffocating, people will erupt and call for the elimination of gender altogether. We’ve spoken in detail about these notions in the past two episodes, and today we will explore this further as we touch upon relevant themes of radical feminist movements.

07:23
In his article, Fall of the Family, Sh. Abdalhakim Murad writes, “One of the most iconic liberative ideologies of the twentieth century was feminism. Divided into a myriad tendencies, some cautious and reasoned, others wandering into remarkable territories of witchcraft and anti-male lesbianism, this is a movement about which few generalisations can be made. But perhaps a good place to start is the observation that women might be seen as the major though unintended victims of both Victorian pre-feminist and late twentieth-century feminist values. The disabilities suffered by wives in traditional European cultures, which denied that they even existed as financial or legal entities distinct from their husbands, may have been accepted without demur by most of them; but real injustice and suffering were caused to those for whom the social supports were cut away and who found themselves in need of an independent existence.”

Feminist movements are known for their calls for women’s rights, civil rights, and social justice, championing of equality under the law and within socioeconomic structures. Of course, there are different movements around the world and different waves of movements, often termed first wave, second wave, third wave, and fourth wave feminism, which in essence share similar goals, but they have different characteristics of action given the differing perspectives among different generations of women.

The first wave feminism of the late 19th century started with the women’s suffrage movement and focusing on the woman’s right to vote. Sh. Abdalhakim Murad further writes, “The feminism of the suffragettes was thus a real quest for justice, recalling that of A’isha, who took to arms when, as it were, she was denied her vote. It moved Western society away from church tradition and towards the Islamic norm in which a woman is always a separate legal entity even after marriage, retaining her property, surname, inheritance rights, and the right to initiate legal proceedings.” And of course, given the politics of the time, and in the US in particular, white women were eventually guaranteed the right to vote in 1920 under the 19th amendment, while women of color wouldn’t have the universal right to vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, when all people of color were guaranteed the right to vote.

Second wave feminism, from roughly the 1960s to the 1990s, focused more on issues like pay equality, reproductive rights, female sexuality, and domestic violence. Second wave feminism began to associate the subjugation of women with broader critiques of patriarchy, capitalism, normative heterosexuality, and the woman's role as wife and mother. Sex and gender were differentiated—the former being biological, and the latter a social construct that varies culture-to-culture and over time. And like the first wave of feminism, many of these goals were achieved through legislation and court decisions. Feminists spoke of women as a social class and coined phrases such as "the personal is political" and "identity politics" in an effort to demonstrate that race, class, and gender oppression are all related. They initiated a concentrated effort to rid society top-to-bottom of sexism, from children's cartoons to the highest levels of government.

Third wave feminism emerged from the mid 1990’s, informed by post-colonial and post-modern thinking, and challenging “female heteronormativity” and redefining femininity. While third wave feminists support feminism, they reject many stereotypes of the feminine ideal, including the word “feminism” itself which many of them find exclusionary. Many constructs were destabilized, including the notions of "universal womanhood," body, gender, sexuality and heteronormativity. This movement was a stark departure from the second wave and the development of intersectionality began to take form. The term “intersectionality” was coined by lawyer and activist Kimberlé Crenshaw “to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics ‘intersect’ with one another and overlap.”

With this in mind, Sh. Abdalhakim Murad writes, “What Muslims are less happy about is the androphobic feminism of the past half-century, documented by writers like Christina Sommers (Who Stole Feminism?). The new thinkers took a brave new step by attacking not only structural unfairnesses in society but the most fundamental assumptions about male and female identity. “Until the myth of the maternal instinct is abolished, women will continue to be subjugated”, thundered Simone de Beauvoir, as usual ahead of her time, and similar noises can be heard from many new feminists. In this view, the traditional association of femaleness with femininity and maleness with manhood was deemed scientifically and morally improper, and was to be attacked as the underpinning of the whole traditional edifice of “patriarchy”. Perhaps shadowing this, some intelligent women now decline to reproduce; Satoshi Kanazawa of the LSE has speculated about the very strange long-term consequences of the modern correlation between high female IQ and voluntary infertility. As though to return the complement, men are increasingly refusing to partner with women or to become fathers, thanks to the “war on men”, as Helen Smith calls it in her Men on Strike, which documents what she sees as the discriminatory anti-male ethos spreading through society as the result of the new gender feminism.”

And Dr. Joseph Nicolosi writes, from a psychological perspective, that “this wounded female psyche may be why so many lesbians are champions of feminist political causes. Lesbianism quite naturally allies itself with feminism. In the lesbian community you hear, "You don't need a man, you can do it on your own" Or, "What good are men? They only want one thing. Who needs them?" This, combined with a rebellious attitude toward the idea of receptivity, is part of lesbianism. Yet receptivity is the very core of the feminine. Rather than championing a war against men, we must bring back the life-giving spirit of the feminine.”

Fourth wave feminism is newly emerging over the last decade or so, therefore it’s difficult to define. That said, fourth wave feminism is seen as characterized by action-based viral campaigns, protests, and movements like #MeToo advancing from the fringes of society into the headlines of our everyday news. The fourth wave has also been characterized as “queer, sex-positive, trans-inclusive, body-positive, and digitally driven.” It seeks to further deconstruct gender norms. The problem these feminists confront is systemic white male supremacy. Fourth wavers believe there is no feminism without an understanding of comprehensive justice that deconstructs systems of power and includes emphasis on racial justice as well as examinations of class, disability, and other issues. That being said, none of these waves or movements are monoliths, and the tensions between the different versions of feminism are quite prominent. 

So how does all of this fit with our overarching theme of understanding the psyche of the LGBT movement? What we see are “gay” men and “lesbians” joining forces on the political front to protest against patriarchy. I’m not saying that all feminists are gay, or vice versa, or that the feminist movements are completely in line with LGBT movements, or vice versa. What I’m referring to here is the psyche of the LGBT movement in terms of what I’ve covered so far in this episode. From a psychodynamic perspective, and as Nicolosi asserts, “the lesbian who feels wounded in her feminine spirit - unsafe in claiming her feminine nature - will be powerfully drawn to a political movement that buttresses "woman power" and condemns patriarchy. She joins forces with the gay man, who shares her anger because he has been wounded by his male peers and has long felt on the outs in masculine company, particularly in relation to straight males in power. So the gay-lesbian political alliance in support of feminist goals is not surprising.” 

Many women who experience same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria have also developed a profound denial of gender differences (i.e. "Women can do everything that men can do” and "Who needs a man?"). This attitude often carried over into a political position of radical feminism and of resentment toward men in power. Nicolosi goes on to share how a number of both female and male homosexual clients have politicized their feelings about homosexuality. Homosexuals “were more sensitive, more humane, more refined, and more moral than heterosexuals. If straights were as peace-loving as gays, the world would be a better place," was an often expressed sentiment.

What’s ironic is that “gay” men laugh at the idea of masculinity, particularly “straight men’s masculinity” and traditional sex stereotypes, yet masculinity still remains the gay ideal. Many researchers, some of whom are gay men, have observed this phenomenon, and one such observer notes that masculinity is "the single most desirable feature" among gay men. Effeminate men, in contrast, "are held in much lower esteem than are masculine-looking homosexuals.”

A social scientist who studied the gay male community says the following: “In the gay world, masculinity is a valued commodity, an asset in the sexual marketplace.... If there is a consensus on any subject in the gay world, it is that masculinity is better than femininity. The norm in the gay world is that one should be masculine. One should "be a man" and not "a sissy." … This preference for the masculine involves not only the area of sexual attraction. In the friendship groupings and homophile organizations I have studied ... status differentiation ... is highly related to masculinity-femininity, with the most masculine being nearest the top of the status hierarchy.”

As we have covered throughout the podcast, it is through our maleness or our femaleness (i.e. being comfortable with our gender identities and embodying our Divinely-ordained male and female attributes) that we grow to maturity. Contrast this with what we’ve covered in the past two episodes; the immature behavior in the gay male community, sexual impulsivity, narcissistic self-absorption, fascination with image, and a high rate of indulgence in drugs and alcohol. Among gay women, we see emotionally dependent, can't-live-without-you relationships and a similar high rate of difficulty with depression and substance abuse. Without a secure sense of gender, it is much more difficult to get past the roadblocks of adolescence and settle into maturity.

This distortion of gender is now crystallizing into an abolishing of gender and gender roles, and instead creating gender confusion and chaos. This is a principle rallying cause of gay activism as well as radical feminist movements. Interestingly, psychologist Daryl Bem (whose theory of “exotic becomes erotic” we’ve cited many times in the podcast as you remember) defines his idea of a utopian society as one where everyone would potentially be everyone else's lover and gender would be insignificant. He envisions a "non-gender-polarizing culture that [does] not systematically estrange its children from either opposite sex, or same sex peers. Such children would not grow up to be asexual; rather, their erotic and romantic preferences would simply crystallize around a more diverse and idiosyncratic variety of attributes. Gentlemen might still prefer blondes, but some of those gentlemen (and some ladies) would prefer blondes of any sex."

Remember what I mentioned back in episode 66, that the driving force behind all this is rage. As Kirk and Madsen wrote in their book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, “Over history, love has severed no colonies from their mother countries, nor overthrown any czars, nor obliterated any Nazis, nor produced any civil rights movements. You may discount what the pious tell you, because it is actually rage, not love, that lay behind all those progressive events.” Anger and rage, as we’ve covered at length in season 4, always masks underlying hurt and pain, and in the case of the LGBT community or radical feminist movements, full acceptance of their vision and goals will, sadly, not contribute to an alleviation of the pain, but rather exacerbate it even further. If the driving factor for all this is hurt and pain, how can this ever lead to healing and growth, and how can this ever contribute to a healthy functioning society? As I mentioned before, If I’m angry at the broken family systems I grew up in, the answer is not to abolish the nuclear family unit in its entirety. If I’m angry with toxic masculinity and tyrant fathers and brothers, the answer is not to emasculate men altogether. If I’m enraged that I don’t fit in particular gender roles, the solution is not to deconstruct gender altogether and create a world with gender chaos. When all I see is pain and hurt, the overlying anger drives me to destroy instead of rebuild. 

22:10
A common theme among many feminist and gay liberation movements is the assertion that gender differences are socially constructed beyond the “superficial” physical differences. This has later evolved into a rejection of notions of gender and gender roles altogether, leading to blurring of gender lines and a rise of agender or gender fluid notions, many of which are gaining momentum throughout the world nowadays. But is it true that gender is a social construct, there are no differences between men and women, and one can get away with removing notions of gender altogether?

In the article “Boys will be Boys”, Sh. Abdalhakim Murad lists some examples where science has shown the clear differences between male and female physiology. One example involves physical power and agility, where clearly men have an advantage. In the UK in 1998, a rule was applied that demanded ‘gender-free’ selection procedures to ensure that women and men faced identical tasks in the army. “The result was a massive rise in female injuries when compared with the men. Medical discharges due to overuse injuries, such as stress fractures, were calculated at 1.5% for male recruits, and at anything between 4.6% and 11.1% for females… Differences in women’s bone size and muscle mass lead to 33%-39% more stress on the female skeleton when compared to that of the male.”

Another example given to the argument that any gender differences are socially constructed would be the famous kibbutz scheme in Jewish-settled Palestine. This was founded in 1910 on the assumption that the emancipation of women can only be achieved when socialised gender roles are removed altogether from early childhood.

“The kibbutzim were collective farms in which maternal care was entirely eliminated. Instead of living with parents, children lived in special dormitories. To spare women the usual rounds of domestic drudgery, communal laundries and kitchens were provided. Both men and women were hence freed up to choose any activity or work they wished, and it was expected that both would participate equally in positions of power. To ensure the neutral socialisation of children, toys were kept in large baskets, so that boys and girls could choose their own toys, rather than have gender-stereotyped toys and games pressed upon them.

The results, after ninety years of consistent and conscientious social engineering, have been disconcerting. The children, to the anger of their supervisors, unerringly choose gender-specific toys. Three year-old boys pull guns and cars out of the baskets; the girls prefer dolls and tea-sets. Games organised by the children are competitive - among boys - and cooperative – among the girls.

In the kibbutz administration, quotas imposed to enforce female participation in leadership positions are rarely met. Dress codes which attempt to create uniformity are consistently flouted. In Israel today, the kibbutzim harbour sex-distinctions which are famous for being sharper than those observable in Israeli society at large. The experiment has not only failed, it seems to have backfired.”

One aspect that is biologically and genetically hardwired and has nothing to do with social conditioning is what biologist Robert Trivers refers to as “parental investment”, which refers to a parent investing in the offspring, thereby increasing the offspring's chances of survival and eventual reproductive success at the expense of the parent's ability to invest in other offspring, and this was higher in the case of females than males. And this is seen across species. For humans, we see this with nine months of pregnancy, followed by breastfeeding until weaning. The male’s “parental investment”, on the other hand, is considerably less. “Biology also helps us understand why the female hormonal pattern, dominated by estrogen and oxytocin, generates strong nurturing instincts which are far less evident in the male androgens and in adrenaline, which is useful for huntsmen and warriors, but of considerably less value in the rearing of children.”

Even as far as interests and behaviors are concerned, we see a difference between males and females. Males are generally more attracted to competitive behaviors. As Kingsley Browne notes, “While competition significantly increases the motivation of men, it does not do so for women. The more competitive an academic programme is perceived by women, for example, the poorer their performance, while the correlation is reversed for men.” Elaborating on this, Sh. Abdalhakim Murad further writes, “Biologists like Camilla Benbow have recently assessed the implications for modern social differentiation of our genetic inheritance. Her study shows that ‘boys are much more likely to choose careers in maths and science even though girls are fully aware of their own abilities in these areas.’ Again, the conclusion is not that women are less intelligent than men - the new biology clearly rules that out - but that they prefer to exercise it in specific fields. At Harvard, for instance, there is a seven to one male preponderance in the science faculties, and a female preponderance, or equivalence, in arts subjects. Subjects like languages and art history are consistently oversubscribed by female students. And while there is no evidence that women are less intelligent than men - and in general they show themselves much more articulate - more than seventy percent of first-class degrees at Oxford are obtained by male students.

A variety of university committees have been set up to investigate this, initially with a view to eliminating it. However the differential is very stubborn. The reason may be partly to do with socialisation, but an awareness is growing that heredity is also a factor that refuses to be ignored. The male endocrine system carries the memory of thousands of years of hunting, an activity which requires a kind of focussed attention on a single quarry to the exclusion of all else, coupled with an adrenaline rush at the finish. Such a metabolism, it is now being argued, is better equipped to cope with university-style examinations (as distinct from secondary-school styles of assessment), than the female metabolism, which has historically flourished, that is, been reproductively successful, in nurturing and co-operative tasks.”

Men and women have comparable intelligence quotients, but the nature of this intelligence and the context in which it thrives can be quite different. For example, even as children, boys’ games are competitive and often aggressive, while girls’ games are collaborative and involve more sophisticated forms of discourse and conceptualisation. Janet Lever, a child psychologist, observed that boys’ play is more complex than girls', “as indexed by such attributes as role differentiation, interdependence between players, size of play group, explicitness of goals, number of rules, and team formation,” with 65% of boys’ games being formal and more rule-oriented, while only 35% of games played by girls have rules.

Another common difference between the sexes involves issues of risk-taking. “Consistently the figures show that risky activities and sports attract more men than women. Gambling, motor racing and bungee-jumping continue to be overwhelmingly male activities. Men are statistically more likely to ignore seat-belt laws. Despite the popular stereotypes of women as dangerous drivers, the great majority of lethal road accidents are the fault of men, because they indulge in hazardous and aggressive styles of driving. More than twice as many boys as girls die through playing dangerous games, and this statistic is remarkably consistent throughout the world.”

As a result of all this, it makes sense to assert, as Sh. Abdalhakim Murad did very eloquently: “Islam’s awareness that when human nature (fitra) is cultivated rather than suppressed, men and women will tend towards different spheres of activity… However heavily society may inculturate women into seeking absolute parity in all dimensions of life, it cannot ignore the reality that they still, as the likes of Vanessa Redgrave courageously assert, have babies and report a tendency to enjoy looking after them. Those courageous enough to leave their careers while their children are small often have to put up with charges of blasphemy and heresy from society; but they persist in their belief, outrageous to the secular mind, that mothers bring up children better than childminders, that breastmilk is better than formula, and even – this as the most dangerous heresy of all – that bringing up a child can be more satisfying than trading bonds or driving buses.

There are already signs that women are rebelling against the sort of feminist orthodoxy that demands an absolute parity of function with men. Taking time “out” to look after a child is less outrageous to the minds of many educated women than the media might suggest. But much real damage has been done. The campaign to turn fathers into nurturers and house-husbands progresses only fitfully; and many houses have become more like dormitories than homes. Mealtimes are desultory, microwaved affairs; both parents are too exhausted to spend “quality time” with active children; and the sense of belonging to the house and to each other is sadly attenuated. By the time children leave home, they may feel that they are not leaving very much.

In such a dismal context, dissolution is almost logical. The stress of the two-career family is greater than some normal people can manage. Increased income and (for some) pleasure at work are poor compensations for the broadened scope for fatigue and dispute. Deprived of the woman’s gift for warming a house, both husband and children are made less secure. The overlap in functions provides endless room for argument. And when the dissolution comes, it is almost always the woman who suffers most.”

Keeping all this in mind, it’s not surprising that many thinkers are no longer demanding “equality” among the sexes, since such inevitable categorical differences among men and women makes the whole notion of “equality” rather too simple and unfair, while it is more valuable to focus on demanding better opportunities and respect. “Men and women are neither equal nor unequal. We can no more say that men are better than women than we can say that ‘the rain is better than the earth’. To use the old language of ‘equality’ is in fact to be guilty of what the philosopher Wittgenstein called a ‘category mistake’.”

And as Sh. Abdalhakim Murad beautifully sums it up, “This is why we say, respectfully ignoring the protests of old-fashioned feminists, that men and women, in a Godfearing society, will tend towards different concerns and spheres of activity. Our aim, after all, is human happiness, not political correctness. Any attempt to impose a crudely egalitarian template on the data of the Qur’an and Sunna, and of the Sira, and the recurrent patterns of Islamic social history, will underestimate them drastically. Walaysa al-dhakaru ka’l-untha, says the Qur’an: the male is not like the female. Egalitarianism is reductionism, and diminishes the bivalence of our kind, whose fertility is apparent in many more ways than the merely reproductive.”

35:01
Of course, we as Muslims take it for granted that there is a dichotomy between the male and the female, since our worldview is based on it. We refer to Islam as a normative framework in that regard. What does Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala say in the Qur’an? In Surat Al-Layl, Allah says, “and [by] His creation of the male and the female," (i.e. He swears by His creation of the male and the female) [Al-Layl:3]. In Surat An-Najm, He says, “And that He creates the two mates - the male and female” [An-Najm: 45], and in Surat Aal-Imran, He asserts, “And the male is not like the female” [Aal-Imran: 36].

Of course, the male and female are spiritually equal, have souls and have equal possibility of developing taqwa and ending in Paradise, but there are physical and dispositional differences (as we’ve already seen, corroborated by empirical evidence and science), and there are different rules governing each sex in our deen. That in no way means that one is superior to the other, but rather that there are inherent differences, and that’s the way Allah created us. In Surat Ar-Rum, Allah says, “And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought” [Ar-Rum: 21]. In addition, in the first verse of Surat An-Nisaa’, He subhanahu wa ta’ala says, “O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women” [An-Nisaa’:1]. Our natural, instinctive conscience (or what we call our fitrah) accepts the truth that Allah has created mankind as male and female, and our design is such that there is compatibility and balance in that regard.

As you remember, back in season 4, episode 54, we spoke in details about Islamic sexual ethics and gender norms, and we elaborated on the obvious biological complementarity between men and women, as well as a general complementarity in disposition (khilqa) between them, even though contemporary Western culture tries its hardest to minimize and deny any differences between men and women beyond the most obvious physical differences, as we have discussed. While there is a range - and Islam even has room for those who depart from the general norm of their gender - there is no denying that there are certain characteristics that men tend to exhibit and that women tend to exhibit, as we have also touched upon before, and this is as it should be. It is something to be celebrated, not denied. Men have their roles and capacities, women have their roles and capacities. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable. Islam actually underlines, celebrates, and sometimes augments gender differences rather than suppress and deny them.

A great example is given in Sh. Abdal Hakim Murad’s paper, “Boys will be Boys” in reference to the neurobiological differences between men and women, and how that is beautifully addressed in our Shari’ah: “One expert who has devoted his research to the implications of neurotransmitters for gender behaviour is Marvin Zuckerman. He divides the serotonin-related human quest for sensation into four types. Firstly, there is the quest for adventure and the love of danger, which is associated with the typically low serotonin levels of the male. Secondly, the quest for experiences, whether these be musical, aesthetic or religious. Zuckerman detected no significant difference between male and female enthusiasm for this quest. Thirdly, disinhibition. The neurotransmitters of the typical male allow the comparatively swift loss of moral control over the sex drive, when compared with women. Fourthly, boredom. The male brain is more susceptible to boredom when carrying out routine and repetitive tasks.

What are the religious implications of this? There are feminists who point to these factors as evidence for the categoric moral inferiority of men. Islamically, however, they can all be understood, and addressed, in ways that again demonstrate the conformability of the fitra, as understood by Islam as a quasi-metaphysical quality, with the purely physical processes and geography of the human brain. The first of Zuckerman’s distinctions is not necessarily to the discredit of men. Courage is, after all, a Prophetic virtue; and without emotional surges the Muslim would make a poor horseman, or warrior, or risk-taking builder of an Istanbul mosque. Secondly, with regard to the category to which the lubb, the inner core of humanity, most fully relates, it is clear that scientific evidence exists for the spiritual ‘equal opportunities’ of the sexes. The Qur’an locates the source of religious faith in the lubb’s ability to experience the divine origin of God’s signs in nature. Men and women are clearly equally good at this. Likewise, faith-sustaining aesthetic achievements such as music, literature, crafts, and architecture, are likely to be no less effective for women than for men. The Qur’an itself is perceived as beautiful and true by both sexes without distinction. It is on this level, then, (and only here) that we can meaningfully speak of the equality of the sexes.

The third of Zuckerman’s categories appears to place men at a disadvantage; but in reality this applies only to the secular. In the believer, the virtue described in the Qur’an as taqwa, which is produced from the faith generated in the second category, overcomes this shortfall. The spiritual technologies of Islam allow a compensation for the serotonin lack and a proper disciplining of the darker passions which dwell in the limbic system. The actualised shari‘a is, in a sense, the victory of the frontal cortex, and allows the male to retrieve the balance which is already implicit in the female metabolism. No doubt this is why ‘women are deficient in intellect and religion’. It is not that the Creator has given them innate disadvantages in the quest for understanding and salvation, but rather that He requires men to make more effort to reach their degree of fitra.

The fourth (the quest for novelty, and the dislike of repetitive tasks) privileges women over men in the duties of the home. Insofar as modern office jobs are repetitive and tedious, women are clearly also gifted with more stamina in the workplace as well. Whether the biologists can demonstrate that men should, or are likely to, occupy fifty percent of jobs requiring attention to repetitive tasks, seems unlikely.

A further explanation of the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon may be located in the primordial female tendency to nurture. Consistently through the pre-modern world, women were primarily involved in care for the young, the sick, and the elderly. As the feminist writer Carol Gilligan observes, ‘women not only define themselves in a context of human relationship but also judge themselves in terms of their ability to care.’ Girls are ‘more person-oriented’, while boys tend to be more ‘object-oriented.’”

In addition to the obvious physical and pretty obvious emotional compatibility, there is also a larger, more profound sense in which men and women complement and complete each other on the metaphysical level as well, where the natural, fitri differences that Allah has placed between males and females are, in a sense, a reflection of the division of Allah’s names and attributes into attributes of jalal (majesty) and attributes of jamal (beauty). They are different but of equal worth. God is not God with pure jalal or pure jamal. They are both in perfect harmony in Him subhanahu wa ta’ala. We are created male and female, with a variant distribution of the two kinds of attributes. In reuniting as male and female, the wholeness of the full range of human attributes is reestablished. We have spoken about this a lot throughout the podcast as you may recall.

Sh. Abdalhakim Murad puts this eloquently in his article “Boys will be Boys”, where he says, “...just as procreation bears fruit through the shaping received from androgens and estrogens, so too creation itself is bathed in androgens and estrogens. The entire cosmos is gendered; in fact, it comes into being, and attains the complexity of manifestation after the experience of undifferentiated unity, through the interaction of the divine Names, where the supreme and governing category is the polarity of Jalal and Jamal.”

He further elaborates on this in his article, “Fall of the Family”, where he writes: “The Quran and our entire theological tradition are rooted in the awareness that the two sexes are real, being an aspect of the inherent polarity of the cosmos. Everything in creation has been set up in pairs; and it is this magnetic relationship between alternate principles which brings movement and value into the world. Like the ancient Chinese, with their division of the Ten Thousand Things into Yin and Yang, the Muslims, naming phenomena with the gender-specific Arabic of revelation, know that gender is not convention but principle, not simple biology – but metaphysics.

Allah has ninety-nine names. Some are Names of Majesty: such as the Compeller, the Overwhelming, the Avenger. Others are Names of Beauty: the Gentle, the Forgiving, the Loving-Kind. For our esoterists, the former category are broadly associated with male virtues, and the latter with female ones. The divine matrix of the world is dyadic, the world is “created in pairs”. Under the One, the number two is determinative. But as all are God’s perfect Names, and equally manifest the divine perfection, neither Beauty nor Majesty is read as superior. And the Divine Essence to which they all resolve transcends gender. Islam has no truck with the hazardous Christian notion that God through an incarnation “bodies himself forth” as male, an assumption that was once invoked to justify traditional Western notions of the objective superiority of the male principle. So Muslims, unlike atheists among scientists, are axiomatically committed to the principle of the equivalent natural worth of the genders.”

So it is clear that there is a male:female dichotomy in Islam that spans all aspects of life (personal, social, legal and metaphysical). Yet, who is beyond gender? Allah SWT. As Sh. Abdalhakim Murad writes, “Islamic theology confronts us with the spectacular absence of a gendered Godhead. A theology which reveals the divine through incarnation in a body also locates it in a gender, and inescapably passes judgement on the other sex. A theology which locates it in a book makes no judgement about gender; since books are unsexed. The divine remains divine, that is, genderless, even when expressed in a fully saving way on earth.”

While we see Andromorphic views of the divine in Christianity and Judaism, the Islamic understanding does not require that Allah should be constructed as male. As Sh. Abdalhakim Murad further comments, “From a theologian’s standpoint it might be said that Islam averts the difficulty identified by Ruether through its emphasis on the divine transcendence (tanzih). The same ‘desertlike’ abstract difference of the Muslim God which draws reproach from Christian commentators also allows a gender-neutral image of the divine. Allah is not neuter or androgynous, but is simply above gender [...] God is simply Allah, the God; never Father. The divine is referred to by the masculine pronoun: Allah is He (huwa); but the grammarians and exegetes concur that this is not even allegoric: Arabic has no neuter, and the use of the masculine is normal in Arabic for genderless nouns. No male preponderance is implied, any more than femininity is implied by the grammatically female gender of neuter plurals.”

Sh. Abdalhakim Murad then goes on to quote a Muslim woman writer, Sartaz Aziz, who writes: “I am deeply grateful that my first ideas of God were formed by Islam because I was able to think of the Highest Power as one completely without sex or race, and thus completely unpatriarchal… We begin with the idea of a deity who is completely above sexual identity, and thus completely outside the value system created by patriarchy.” 

And again, going back to the concept of Divine Names of Majesty (jalal), and the Names of Beauty (jamal): The Names of Majesty included Allah as Powerful (al-Qawi), Overwhelming (al-Jabbar), Judge (al-Hakam); and these were seen as pre-eminently masculine. Names of Beauty included the All-Compassionate (al-Rahman), the Mild (al-Halim), the Loving-kind (al-Wadud), and so on, seen as archetypally feminine. Sh. Abdalhakim Murad comments, “The crux is that neither set could be seen as pre-eminent, for all were equally Names of God. In fact, by far the most conspicuous of the Divine Names in the Qur'an is al-Rahman, the All-Compassionate. And the explicitly feminine resonances of this name were remarked upon by the Prophet (s.w.s.) himself, who taught that rahma, loving compassion, is an attribute derived from the word rahim, meaning a womb. The cosmic matrix from which differentiated being is fashioned is thus, as in all primordial systems, explicitly feminine; although Allah ‘an sich’ remains outside qualification by gender or by any other property.”

Commenting on the “female” aspect of God, Sh. Abdalhakim Murad states that this “allowed most of the great mystical poets to refer to God as Layla - the celestial beloved - the Arabic name Layla actually means ‘night’. Layla is the veiled, darkly-unknown God who brings forth life, and whose beauty once revealed dazzles the lover. In one branch of this tradition, the poets use frankly erotic language to convey the rapture of the spiritual wayfarer as he lifts the veil - a metaphor for distraction and sin - to be annihilated in his Beloved.” And later on he writes, “The kalam hence abolishes gender; spirituality deploys it exuberantly as metaphor, thereby displaying an aspect of the distinction between ‘iman’ and ‘ihsan’. The third component of the ternary laid down by the Hadith of Gabriel, ‘islam’, comprising the outward forms of religion, also recognises and affirms gender as a fundamental quality of existence, and this finds expression in many provisions of Islamic law and the norms of Muslim life.”

Given everything presented thus far, from an Islamic standpoint, it follows that the dichotomy of male and female involves all aspects of life (the personal, social, legal and metaphysical), that males and females are similar in some ways and different in others, and such differences are to be celebrated, not denied, and that males have their own capabilities and responsibilities, and females have their own capabilities and responsibilities. We are all equal in the eyes of Allah, and, as He says in Surat Al-Hujurat, “The most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous [most pious, having the most taqwa] of you” [Qur’an, 49:13]. In addition to this, the normative matter (metaphysically, morally and even statistically) involves an alignment of biological sex, gender identity and expression and one’s sexual orientation. However, a separation of these realities is now celebrated as we’ve discussed previously in the podcast, such that gender identity, gender expression, anatomical sex and sexual orientation are on a sliding scale and are not necessarily the same, and this is presented nowadays as the norm, creating even more confusion and chaos.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, whereby one’s gender identity does not follow their biological sex, or one’s sexual attraction is not towards the opposite sex (hence the whole point of the podcast series). However, exceptions to the rule do not undermine the rule itself, that is the normativity of the male-female gender binary, the expectation of broad conformity to the behavioral norms (i.e. dress and mannerisms) of one’s natal sex/gender within one’s cultural context, as well as the normativity of opposite sex-attraction and sexual expression within marriage between a man and a woman. Once again, this and other topics constitute part of a larger discussion on intersex, gender nonconformity, gender dysphoria and transgenderism, and we will discuss them in detail soon in this season, inshaAllah.

I would like to end this section with this brilliant quote from Sh. Abdalhakim Murad’s article, Islam, Irigaray, and the Retrieval of Gender, “Islam’s theology of gender thus contends with a maze, a web of connections which demand familiarity with a diverse legal code, regional heterogeneity, and with the metaphysical no less than with the physical. This complexity should warn us against offering facile generalisations about Islam’s attitude to women. Journalists, feminists and cultivated people generally in the West have harboured deeply negative verdicts here. Often these verdicts are arrived at through the observation of actual Muslim societies; and it would be both futile and immoral to suggest that the modern Islamic world is always to be admired for its treatment of women.” And of course, this is true in many Muslim countries - women are denied their basic rights in some areas, while in other areas, they are constantly victimized and oppressed under the banner of “Islam”, though none of this has anything to do with God or Islam. Or as Sh. Abdalhkim Murad writes, this “is not the product of a divinely-willed sheltering of a sex, but of ego, of the nafs of the male. In this way, types of ‘Islamization’ being launched in several countries today by individuals driven by resentment and committed to an anthropomorphised and hence andromorphic God, appear to bear no relation either to traditional fiqh discourse or to the revelatory insistence on justice. This imbalance will continue unless actualised religion learns to reincorporate the dimension of ihsan, which valorises the feminine principle, and also obstructs and ultimately annihilates the ego which underpins gender chauvinism. We need to distinguish, as many Muslim women thinkers are doing, between the expectations of the religion’s ethos (as legible in scripture, classical exegesis, and spirituality), and the actual asymmetric structures of post-classical Muslim societies, which, like Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Chinese cultures, contain much that is in real need of reform.”

And then he further adds, “By now it should have become clear that we are not vaunting the revelation as either a ‘macho’ chauvinism or as a miraculous prefigurement of late twentieth-century feminism. Feminism, in any case, has no orthodoxy, as Fiorenza reminds us; and certain of its forms are repellent to us, and are clearly damaging to women and society, while others may demonstrate striking convergences with the Shari‘a and our gendered cosmologies. We advocate a nuanced understanding which tries to bypass the sexism-versus-feminism dialectic by proposing a theology in which the Divine is truly gender-neutral, but gifts humanity with a legal code and family norms which are rooted in the understanding that, as Irigaray insists, the sexes ‘are not equal but different’, and will naturally gravitate towards divergent roles which affirm rather than suppress their respective genius.”

56:46
Remember earlier in this episode when we talked about Dan Griffin and his “Man Rules” in reference to toxic masculinity. He asserts that toxic masculinity is based in shame and trauma, and he contrasts that with “conscious masculinity”, where each man has the right to choose the kind of man he wants to be, consciously, without having the “Man Rules” control his every decision. We are men. We are virtuous. There’s no shame in crying, showing weakness or being vulnerable. That is human. There’s nothing wrong with asking for help, feeling weak, backing down when needed, or being chaste. In fact, all of that is praiseworthy. 

For those of you interested, Dan Griffin has written a wonderful book called A Man’s Way through Relationships, which is the first book written specifically to help men create healthy relationships while navigating the challenges of these Man Rules. He also has another book called, A Man’s Way through the Twelve Steps. I highly recommend this book for those of you going through sexual recovery and healing, because this book offers a holistic approach to sobriety for men, as we work through the Twelve Steps, learn to reexamine negative masculine scripts that have shaped who we are and how we approach recovery, and strengthen the positive and affirming aspects of manhood. The book helps us work through common problems that we face, like difficulty admitting powerlessness, finding connection with a Higher Power, letting go of repressed anger and resentment, contending with sexual issues, and overcoming barriers to intimacy and meaningful relationships. Also, between 2017-2019, Dan had published regular episodes as part of his podcast, The Man Rules, where he talked about all these topics in addition to many relevant topics related to manhood, masculinity, struggles and so on. I will add a link to all these resources in the episode description so you can check them out, inshaAllah.

Something actually struck me when contrasting “toxic masculinity” with the healing/recovery work that we have to do to overcome past traumas, addictive behaviors and negative patterns of thinking. While toxic masculinity teaches men not to cry, ask for help or show emotion, the journey of healing and recovery encourages men to cry and grieve, ask for help as we can’t do this work alone, and to show up with our real emotions and practice vulnerability with people who have earned the right and privilege to hear our stories. When toxic masculinity is all about appearing as “macho” and “stud”, being in control, the journey of healing and recovery teaches us to accept uncertainty, admit powerlessness and let go of control. Self-discipline, being responsible and holding oneself accountable, as well as developing honesty and integrity are part of the healing and recovery journey, and they’re also part of “conscious masculinity”. So in one way, therapy, healing and recovery work help us overcome a lot of the “Man Rules” and develop “conscious masculinity”.

Another thing that struck me was how our beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the human embodiment of “conscious masculinity”. As Allah mentions in Surat Al-Ahzab, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent model for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often” [Qur’an, 33:21], and in Surat Al-Anbiyaa’, “And We have not sent you, [O Muḥammad], except as a mercy to the worlds” [Qur’an, 21:107].

We know from the Seerah of the Prophet (PBUH) that he wasn’t afraid of showing emotion, and he was known to cry until his beard would get wet. He was the epitome of integrity, responsibility and accountability, and he was a leader like no other. He was fierce in battle, yet he was merciful with others in his everyday life, particularly women, children and people who needed help. And we are taught his beautiful du’aa of admitting powerlessness at one of the most painful moments of his life when he was at Ta’if, “O Allah! I complain to You of my weakness, my scarcity of resources, and the humiliation I have been subjected to by the people. O Most Merciful of those who are merciful. O Lord of the weak and my Lord too. To whom have you entrusted me? To a distant person who receives me with hostility? Or to an enemy to whom you have granted authority over my affair? So long as You are not angry with me, I do not care. Your favor is of a more expansive relief to me. I seek refuge in the light of Your Face by which all darkness is dispelled and every affair of this world and the next is set right, lest Your anger or Your displeasure descends upon me. I desire Your pleasure and satisfaction until You are pleased. There is no power and no might except by You.”

The Seerah of the Prophet (PBUH) never fails to inspire us emotionally, both as Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women alike. There is so much to learn from the Prophet’s flawless character. When our mother Aisha (RAA) was asked about the Prophet’s character, she said, “The character of the Prophet was the Qur’an itself”, meaning that his character (PBUH) embodied everything that is contained in the Qur’an. And Allah describes the Prophet’s character in Surat Al-Qalam saying, “And indeed, you are of a great moral character” [Qur’an, 68:4]. Even though he was the leader of the Ummah, he never showed any sign of superiority. Once a Bedouin approached him but was too awestruck to speak, to which the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Fear not. I was born out of a Qurayshi woman who ate dried meat”, to put the man at ease. He also did not hesitate to attend to his personal works himself: he cobbled his own shoes, milked the goat and took part in household chores. He never complained about his wives’ cooking, and when there was no food at home, he would fast instead. He mixed with people and chatted with them, he would smile in people’s faces and turn his whole body to face them while conversing with them, so that people felt engaged and loved. 

He abstained from pestering his companions with sermons and knowledge all the time. He never snubbed anyone or passed any uncharitable comment behind their back. He embodied integrity, such that his words matched his actions; what he preached to others, he was the first to practice. He preached balance and moderation in thought and practice and followed it himself. There are a number of sayings of the Prophet which shows the importance he attached to good manners, like “The best among the believers are those of best manners”. He PBUH also stated that “Good manners of a believer raise him to the level of a person who fasts all day and prays all night”. He laid great stress on good manners and justice for all. He showed mercy to all creatures, and was known for his kindness towards children and orphans. A famous story narrated in Bukhari is when al-Aqraʿ b. Habis visited the Prophet PBUH and saw him kissing his grandson, al-Ḥasan. Al-Aqraʿ said, “I have ten children and I have never kissed any one of them!” to which the Prophet PBUH replied: “The one who has no mercy will not be shown any mercy.” Al-Aqraʿ b. Habis considered it a point of pride to be ‘tough’, yet this toxic masculinity was immediately stamped out by the Prophet PBUH. Our mother Aisha (RAA) said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not strike a servant or a woman, and he never struck anything with his hand.” He also loved animals and instructed his companions to show kindness to them. 

This doesn’t mean that his life was anywhere easy. In his 63 years of life, he faced countless trials and  tribulations. He PBUH was an orphan, a widower, battle-scarred, and unjustly outcast. He was defamed, mocked, lied to and lied about. He was poisoned, stoned, and had to witness his companions tortured on account of their faith in his message. He outlived many of his children and buried some of his grandchildren. Yet he remained committed to his cause and message. Imam Ali (RAA) said: ‘When the war became hot and we met and faced the enemy, we shielded ourselves behind the Messenger of Allah PBUH, there was no one who was closer to the enemy than he was.” This strength of purpose did not erode his compassion, empathy, and generous spirit. The weakest, poorest, and socially downtrodden could access him PBUH as readily as the leaders of the community. He sheltered the needy, fed the hungry, protected the vulnerable and guarded people’s secrets. He PBUH was calm when others were agitated, loving when others were filled with hate, and polite when shown contempt. The Prophet PBUH said: “The strong man is not the one who can overpower others. Rather, the strong man is the one who controls himself when he gets angry.” In another narration, he PBUH said: “The strong are not those who defeat people. Rather, the strong are those who defeat their ego.” And other character traits that the Prophet PBUH emphasized include clemency, honesty, valor, modesty, loyalty, kind speech, self-control, and accountability. A close study of the Prophet’s Seerah shows how practical and realistic are his sayings, actions and teachings, giving utmost importance to human dignity and prohibiting every form of harm to mankind.

As Sh. Abdalhakim Murad writes, “The pattern of life decreed by Islam, which is the retrieval of the Great Covenant (mithaq), is primordial, and hence biophiliac and affirmative of the hormonal and genetic dimensions of humanity. Body, mind and spirit are aspects of the same created phenomenon, and are all gendered through their interrelation. To the extent that the human creature lives in wholeness, that creature’s spiritual essence is possessed of gender, whence the magnificent celebration of the genius of each sex which is so characteristic of Islam. The Prophet (s.w.s.) himself can only be fully understood in this light: his virility indicates his wholeness and hence his holiness. His archetypal celebration of womanhood, his multiple wives, recalls the virility of Solomon or other Hebrew patriarchs, or even of Krishna. Living life to the full, he embraced and utterly sacralised the divinely-appointed rite of procreation. [...] Inseparable from this was his valour on the field of battle. His style of spiritual self-naughting linked to heroism has no European equivalent: it was not that of the celibate Templars, or the Knights of Calatrava, but resonates instead with the warrior holiness of Krishna, or the bushido of medieval Japan. The samurai ethic combines meditative stillness, military excellence, and love for women in equal measure; it is a spectacular expression of maleness which is illuminative of this, to many Europeans, most remote and ungraspable dimension of the Sunna.”

To us as Muslims, the Prophet (PBUH) is the perfect embodiment of God-conscious, healthy masculinity. He is our role model in our everyday affairs, as well as in virtue and character. Imagine if we all embodied his characteristics and implemented his way of life in our lives, how different our lives would be. If we want to heal ourselves, our families and collective communities, we have to go back to the Prophetic example. If we want to heal our psyche, shift the narrative from a toxic masculinity to a God-conscious one, heal the pain and hurt masking the rage of many movements and forces out there, we have to get back to the Prophetic example. Putting God front and center. Celebrating the basis of life, and honoring the male and female, and helping both on the Path towards Allah SWT.

1:09:47
Between toxic masculinity and radical feminism, there is the middle road, which is that of God-conscious masculinity. The one exemplified by the Prophet PBUH and his companions, the righteous predecessors, and people of righteousness throughout history. God-conscious masculinity, or rujula, is a process, and it requires knowledge and application of that knowledge.

When the word rajul (man), or rijaal (men), is used in the Qur’an, there is usually a qualification attached as a reason for that designation. When Allah says in Surat Al-Ahzab, “There are rijaal (true men) among the believers who honored their pledge to God: some of them have fulfilled it by death, and some are still waiting. They have not changed in the least.” [Qur’an, 33:23], we find the themes of truthfulness, honor and devotion. When Allah mentions in Surat An-Nur, “Rijaal (true men) who are not distracted, either by commerce or profit, from remembering God, keeping up the prayer, and paying the prescribed alms, fearing a day when hearts and eyes will turn over” [Qur’an 24:37], we learn focus, consciousness, inward piety, charity and reverence. And when Allah speaks to His Prophet PBUH saying, “You should rather pray in a mosque founded from its first day on consciousness of God: in this mosque there are men (rijaal) who desire to grow in purity—God loves those who seek to purify themselves” [Qur’an, 9:108], we learn about purity, God-consciousness, taqwa. All of these are the standards of rijaal. Healthy, God-conscious, prophetic masculinity.

All of those noble characteristics funnel into an oft-contested ayah in the Qur’an that highlights rujula—masculinity: (الرجال قوّامون على النساء) “Husbands should take good care of their wives…” [Qur’an, 4:34]. The word qawwamun, means to take good care of,’ 'in charge of' or ‘caretakers of’ or ‘protectors and maintainers’ or ‘managers of affairs’, which is linked to the concept of vigilance and standing at attention, qiwamah. Allah says in Surat An-Nisaa, “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice (قوامين بالقسط), witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives” [Qur’an, 4:135], and in Surat Al-Ma’idah, He SWT says, “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice (قوّامين لله شهداء بالقسط), and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is [fully] Aware of what you do” [Qur’an, 5:8]. Qawwamun and Qiwamah are mentioned in the Qur’an as recognition of perseverance in the establishment of equitable uprightness and fairness. It is a rallying call to all believing men and women to work for justice, uprightness, and fairness in society. To this end, we ought to seek knowledge and learn the authentic Seerah and story of the Prophet PBUH, contextualize it, and tie the Qur’an and Seerah together as we embody the characteristics of rujula and authentic, prophetic masculinity in our everyday lives. Remember, it’s knowledge and application. We can’t have one without the other. 

One important aspect of masculinity and the world of men is the spirit of the “warrior” and “protector”, the notion of providing security and taking care of others. We have to cultivate courage, and courage comes with discomfort. We can’t lie around idle and doing nothing, we have to wake up early and do the work. We need self-discipline and accountability, and we’ve spoken a lot about this back in season 4 as you may remember. We have to lean into the discomfort. When you’re uncomfortable, you think of strategies and possibilities, you become sharper, and you hone your skills, learn and grow. 

By the same token, many men unfortunately do not know how to defend themselves and others who need them. We ought to learn self-defense as men and engage in martial arts training and develop our strength. I encourage all my fellow brothers who have not engaged in that to sign up for such training, if possible. All the Sahabah learned martial arts and combat skills except for the poet of the Prophet PBUH Hassan bin Thabet, but he was engaging in another form of combat (i.e. that of oration and media). Mind you, by combat and martial arts, we’re not referring to aggression, violence or oppression. On the contrary, it’s about discipline, self-defense, embracing our male power and controlling our anger and instincts. Other Prophetic sports include archery, horseback riding, wrestling and swimming, and we must teach our boys and young men these sports when that is possible. Sports in general help discipline the mind, body and spirit, and they help us deal with conflict in healthy ways.

Many of us feel less than, that we’re not “alpha males”. Of course, among the companions, we do have prominent examples of “alpha males”, like Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Hamza ibn Abd Al-Muttalib, and Khalid bin Al-Walid (may Allah be pleased with all of them), but unlike stereotypical “alpha males” of today, who are known for their impulsivity and violence, the Muslim “alpha males” exemplified by the companions abided by Islamic standards and ethics. They practiced taqwa of Allah. We don’t have the concepts of “alpha” and “beta” males in Islam – our definition of manhood and masculinity is in line with Divine laws and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH). A man in line with the fitra that Allah chose for him, His vicegerent on Earth, the essence to which angels bowed down, and the one who fulfills his responsibility on Earth. Remember when the Prophet PBUH said, “All of you are shepherding guardians and are responsible for your flock. The ruler is a guardian of his subjects, a man is a steward of his family, the woman is a guardian and is responsible for her husband's house and his offspring; and so all of you are guardians and are responsible for your subjects.” So, if the shepherd is not qualified, has no knowledge and skills, not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, then that’s not going to work. 

We have to go back to the fitrah, go back to the foundations in order to be able to fix the problems of today. Putting revelation before anything and anyone (remember the Prophet’s du’aa at Ta’if, “So long as You are not angry with me, I do not care… I desire Your pleasure and satisfaction until You are pleased.”) So it’s not about pleasing others over Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. It’s important to study the Seerah of the Prophet (PBUH) and the stories of the righteous predecessors/Sahabah to learn more about that. In addition to that, women can also help in the process by nurturing men. 

Mothers can actually contribute to that - we learn from the story of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, his mother was the one who forced him to seek knowledge from an early age, she would send him into the company of righteous men and into the company of طلاب العلم/students of Sacred Knowledge, to learn from the imams of the time, until he became the famous Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and countless stories of righteous women throughout Islamic history who helped pave the way for their sons, brothers, husbands and other men in their families to embody the prophetic conscious masculinity. Wives have a very important role as well in their family units to admire their husbands’ masculinity, to admire their strength and respect men as role models, as fathers and husbands, and that contributes to the sons’ respect for masculinity and rujula. 

All of this ties into our discussions throughout the podcast when it comes to the family dynamics that may give rise to men and women who experience same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria, as you may recall. We need to go back to healthy forms of masculinity and femininity, in line with Divinely-ordained laws, in line with the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), and that will, inshaAllah, contribute to healing our lives, healing our families and healing our societies.

1:19:21
The purpose of this episode is not to present an academic discussion on gender, sexuality, toxic masculinity, radical feminist movements, or what have you. There are lots of academic books and articles that are written on this topic, and I'm going to add some links to some of these. And of course, a lot of people have done a much better job addressing these topics. Of course, tackling these topics requires a whole podcast series of its own. But the the reason I chose to dedicate an entire episode to examining some of these topics, and I hope that this is clear by now, is to highlight to the listeners, whether we're talking about notions of toxic masculinity, or radical feminist movements, or the LGBT movements, or whatever other movements that are calling for abolishing gender, gender norms, or the family units or deconstructing notions that are part and parcel of our humanity, or any movements that come out in opposition to other movements or other concepts in life, we see that there's a lot of anger, and underneath that anger, there's a lot of pain and hurt. And we cannot overcome that pain and hurt or heal that pain, without coming together and coming back to our fitrah or authentic self, and going back to the Divine subhanahu wa ta’ala. 

There's always this talk about fighting others, “We need to fight this, we need to fight that”, there's fighting on both sides, and it just never ends, and it's exhausting. Fighting leads to more fighting, hurt people end up hurting more people. And if we look closely and with an open heart, we really can see that it's not actually about “fighting evil” or “fighting patriarchy”, or, you know, fighting this and that. It's actually about a situation of love or lack of love, right? Whether it's spouses fighting, neighbors fighting, coworkers fighting, religions fighting, ideologies fighting, races or nations or what have you, it really boils down to this: “Do I feel loved, accepted and cared for? Do I feel connected? Or do I feel rejected and disconnected?” 

Human nature is universal, and change happens when healing takes place. We can either be part of the problem by not taking action, or by “fighting” and perpetuating further ignorance and lack of love, or we can participate in changing lives, inshaAllah, through love and forgiveness and understanding. It's not about solving the problem through politics, science, media or religious institutions, it actually starts at the individual level, within your own heart, your own mind, by your own actions. It is up to us to go back to the Prophetic example, to go back to our fitrah, to go back to Divine revelation, and implement that in our lives. Remember, it's about knowledge and application. And then, we reach out, we listen to others, we love them, and we help them see the light at the end of the tunnel, while keeping Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala front and center. 

And with this we have come to the end of today's episode, which touched upon notions of toxic masculinity, radical feminism, the notions of male and female in line with Divine revelation and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH). In the next episode, inshaAllah, we start a two-episode series with Br. Mobeen Vaid on revisionist arguments. Until next episode, stay safe and healthy. This has been Waheed Jense in “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi ta’ala wabarakatuh.

Episode Introduction
On Toxic Masculinity, "Man Rules" and "Women Rules"
Waves of Feminism and Psychological Perspectives
Are Gender Differences Socially Constructed?
Islamic Perspective: The Male and the Female
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and God-Conscious Masculinity
Reclaiming Masculinity and Rujula
Conclusions and Ending Remarks