The Treatment of Women:
A Comparative Examination of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism
Jamal Dookhy
Jan 2026
This article is written as a direct response to recurring accusations directed at Islam regarding the treatment of women. Such accusations often claim that Islam suppresses women, prevents their education, or treats them as possessions. These claims are frequently made without serious engagement with their own historical sources, biblical texts, or the exegetical tradition of Christianity itself. When Muslims cite Church Fathers or biblical passages to demonstrate how women were historically viewed in Christian theology, critics often respond by dismissing these sources as mere ‘interpretations.’ This response is misleading. The writings of the Church Fathers represent biblical exegesis, not personal opinion. They did not claim to invent doctrine; rather, they believed they were faithfully extracting meaning from scripture.
If Church Fathers concluded that women were subordinate, morally culpable, restricted in speech, barred from teaching, required to submit to husbands ‘as unto the Lord,’ or obligated to endure abusive marriages, these conclusions arose from how the Bible itself was read, taught, and enforced within early Christianity. According to unverified claims and rumours there is even a bishop from the council of Macon in the 6th century who said that women have no souls. As a bishop where would he take his exegesis and come to that conclusion apart from the bible
This article therefore examines the biblical foundations and patristic exegesis that shaped Christian views of women, contrasts them with Jewish and Roman precedents, and finally compares them with the Islamic model, which empowered women through education, legal identity, and financial independence.
1. Eve, Original Sin, and Female Blame
The foundation of Christian anthropology regarding women begins with Eve. Genesis 3:16 establishes male rule as a post-Fall consequence: ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ The Apostle Paul reinforces this framework by grounding female subordination in creation and the Fall (1 Timothy 2:13–14). Early Church Fathers did not soften this message; they intensified it.
Tertullian, in De Cultu Feminarum (Book I, Chapter 1), directly addresses women as ‘the devil’s gateway,’ blaming them for Adam’s fall and humanity’s death. Augustine of Hippo, in De Genesi ad Litteram and City of God (Book XIV), systematically taught that Eve sinned first and that Adam sinned through her. These conclusions were not rhetorical excesses but exegetical judgments drawn from Genesis and Pauline theology. woman was portrayed as morally weaker, spiritually hazardous, and the primary occasion of humanity’s downfall.
2. Silence, Teaching, and Authority
The New Testament explicitly restricts women from teaching or exercising authority over men. Paul states unambiguously: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man’ (1 Timothy 2:12). Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, women are commanded to remain silent in churches.
Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Augustine, and John Chrysostom understood these verses as universal prohibitions, not limited to public worship only. While women might instruct children or other women privately, they were barred from authoritative teaching over men. These restrictions also affected women’s legal credibility. In Jewish and early Christian legal culture, women’s testimony was generally not accepted as authoritative. This stands in stark contrast to modern polemics which focus on Islam’s requirement of two female witnesses in specific financial cases, while ignoring that in their own tradition women’s testimony was often excluded entirely.
This produces a theological contradiction within Christianity itself. Although women were barred from authoritative speech, the Gospels present Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the resurrection and the bearer of that message to the disciples. If women were not considered reliable witnesses or permitted teachers, the choice of a woman as the first messenger exposes an internal inconsistency.
This stands in stark contrast to Islam, where women such as Aisha (رضي الله عنها) taught male scholars, transmitted hadith, and instructed the community in matters of law and ritual purity. There are thousands of hadith narrated by her and she held a high status even aboe some of the men who came to seek knowledge from her
3. Marriage, Submission, and Abuse
Ephesians 5:22 commands wives to ‘submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.’ Church Fathers treated this analogy literally, framing marital obedience as a religious obligation. Divorce, according to Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, was permitted only in cases of sexual immorality. Cruelty, violence, or abuse were not considered valid grounds.
Augustine, in De Adulterinis Coniugiis, explicitly taught that a woman could not dissolve her marriage due to abuse, though she might separate without remarrying. John Chrysostom and Tertullian likewise emphasized endurance, patience, and submission, placing the moral burden on women to suffer injustice rather than escape it.
In contrast, Islam grants women the right to seek dissolution of marriage through khulʿ. If a woman is harmed or unable to continue the marriage, she may seek a complete termination of the marital bond, not merely separation. This right is grounded in Islamic law and adjudicated through scholarly and judicial processes, reflecting a fundamentally different ethical framework. If we analyse the biblical law with careful scrutiny the woens only way out is commit of the flesh( for more details read my article about the verse in Matthew in my article in academia https://www.academia.edu/61418291/Matthew_5_32_But_I_tell_you_that_anyone_who_divorces_his_wife_except_for_sexual_immorality_makes_her_the_victim_of_adultery_and_anyone_who_marries_a_divorced_woman_commits_adultery_One_for_the_Ladies.
In Islam a women is given a way out if she was mistreated, she can move on and get remarried, and I slam encourages marrying widows and divorcees.
4. Woman as Property vs Legal Personhood
Biblical and Roman law frameworks treated women as subordinate to male authority. Genesis 3:16, combined with Pauline household codes, reinforced male governance.
In contrast, Islam established women as independent legal persons. A Muslim woman retains her own name, controls her own wealth, receives inheritance that does not transfer to her husband, and is not financially obligated to spend on the household. Her husband, by contrast, is legally responsible for maintenance regardless of her wealth. In Islam a man has to provide for the woman any earnings she has if she is working goes to her. To do what she please with.
Khadijah bint Khuwaylid (رضي الله عنها), the wife of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, was a successful and wealthy businesswoman whose property remained exclusively hers. Her financial support of the prophetic mission was voluntary, not obligatory. Such an example is absent from Christian scripture, where theological assumptions about women’s subordination precluded recognition of comparable economic independence.
5. Witch Trials and Historical Practice
Christian history further demonstrates the consequences of these theological assumptions. Thousands of women were accused of witchcraft and executed, often without due process. Islamic law, by contrast, requires rigorous evidentiary standards and judicial procedures before punishment. Accusation alone is insufficient.
Conclusion
Claims that Islam degrades women collapse under historical scrutiny. Christian scripture and patristic exegesis-imposed restrictions on women’s speech, teaching, autonomy, and marital freedom, while obligating endurance of suffering as virtue. Islam reversed these paradigms by granting women education, legal identity, financial independence, and scholarly authority. Any honest comparison must begin with primary texts, not polemical assumptions. Islam, by contrast, restored women’s dignity through education, legal personhood, financial independence, and moral agency. Any honest comparison must begin with primary texts and their authoritative exegesis, not polemical assumptions.