How the Qu'ran encourages the emancipation of women

[caspian]

Oh My God! Now I really need His help because I'm sure my bad English wouldn't help me to explain what I mean. Anyway: ya Allah!

First I must say that it was God not Muhammad (S.a.v.s) who gave women rights which were 90% equal of men's. I say 90% equal, because in islam men and women don't have exactly same rights. there's some difference. As men and women differ by biology of course God can't give them same duties and rights. It's normal. For me Guran is what God offers, not creative works of Muhammad (s.a.v.s). And believe me what you've seen around in islam countries they're related with Guran not more than 10% . Muslim must follow just 5 law; one of them is zakat. which means every year muslim must give 2.5% of his wealth to poor ones . I don't believe that they follow that, but they use the other right - the ability to get marry twice and more-which isn't demanded follow as zakat. they use it changing details. there's not temporary marriage which is allowed in Guran, but they can get marry for fun, for an hour or for four month. It's funny because it happens in islam countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and etch and in legal way.

I often see Guran is being discussed like that. I need to share what I know about Guran, about the scinetific proofs of some ayats of Guran. Inshaallah I will open new thread regarding that. I think it would be interesting for you. I just need time. Because talking about Guran you should give 100% right information.

Regarding the subject: the fact that Guran encourages the emancipation of women is true. Actually for that period it was more than that. as before islam arabian tribes used to burry their kids-daughters while they were alive, it means Guran was rescue for women.

[Nightshade]

well I was looking for somthing else and found this thread so because this is another one of my obbsessions I will have my say!

Yes Islam originally freed (spellling) women in its teachings but the arab culture before that was heavily anti-female ( they used to bury newborn girls alive!)
Islam put a stop to this! As well as giving women the freedom to choose whom they wil or wont marry as well as the freedom to own their own property and to divorce there husbands (although this is slightly more coplex)

OO looks like Im merely repeating Caspian

But I have a question whats this about marige and zakat? Marrige for fun (with the intention of divorce) is that haram??

[smiling_girl]

I am an Indonesian, and moslem in Indonesia really gives liberty to woman . I'll tell you later, not now

[Sitaram]

How the Qu'ran encourages the emancipation of women

What, is your opinion of the above statement?

For reference, this is not a religious question, simply what is your opinion?

I recently read The Bookseller of Kabul, a non-fiction work about life in Afghanistan, written by a woman from Norway, Asne Seierstad, who lived with a family in Kabul for many months. I also read Reading Lolita in Tehran by a brilliant (in my estimation) and courageous professor of literature, Asar Nafisi.

I wish those two authors, both women, who lived and worked in two different Islamic countries, would join our forum and post their impressions in this thread, in response to your question. It would be interesting to see what they have to say.

The portrait painted by these two books is not a portrait of emancipation (my impression) but then, you would have to read them for yourselves, and draw your own conclusions.

I once saw a very amusing quotation, supposedly said by some ranking person in the government of France, something about, "That works well in theory, but not in practice." (Can't remember the exact wording.)

I am reminded of that famous sentence in George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (I am so used to hearing men called "pigs" that I get confused, sometimes.)

You know what they say about pudding, that "the proof is in the eating." We may examine religious scriptures, such as the Bible or the Qu'ran, or redacted oral traditions such as Talmud or Hadith, or the constitutions of various nations, and we may draw various conclusions about equal rights or human rights or leftist rights. Those conclusions are the "pudding" so to speak, a pudding of words on paper. The "eating of that pudding" comes in examining how those words are actualized in individuals, families and societies in daily real life. Sometimes, when we are too hasty in eating our pudding (not hasty pudding) we wind up with "a pie in the face" (like those slapstick comedies), or we simply wind up with "egg on our face" because we cannot convincingly support our opinions, and we have to "eat humble pie" or perhaps "eat our hat", if it should prove to be the case that the reality of daily life does not seem to match or live up to the promise of the reality that we found in those scriptures or constitutions.

I would like to add some more thoughts to this post of mine, during the coming hours, as my time right now is somewhat limited. I realize this is a delicate topic. Delicate topics have the potential to become explosive and disruptive and cause distress for moderators and administrators, which only results in threads being locked. So I will try to speak in a constructive and sensitive manner and provide various readers with "food for thought" which will be more than just hasty pudding.

It seems to me that women have been riding "in the back of the bus" for thousands of years. In fact, it is only during the past 50 years or so that some seats have opened up in the front.

http://www.lankalibrary.com/pol/sirimavo.htm

Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, widow of Ceylon's assassinated prime minister Solomon Bandaranaike, has been elected the world's first woman prime minister.

Her Sri Lanka Freedom Party won a resounding victory in the general election taking 75 out of 150 seats.

Mrs Bandaranaike only entered politics after her husband was shot by an extremist Buddhist on 26 September 1959.

Whenever we start bandying the word "equality" about, we aren't really being totally honest, are we? We aren't simply talking about the freedom of sitting anywhere in the bus. We are talking about getting the chance to drive the bus, occasionally, and to invent the bus, and to sell the bus. When we begin to speak of equality, we begin to traffic in a host of controlled substances; hegemony, empowerment, honor, glory, wealth, and all those other heady intoxicating mind-altering things which are sometimes locked up and heavily guarded. When we yearn for equality, what we really want is a crack at leadership and the hope of exercising authority.

"Emancipation" implies some previous state of imprisonment or bondage. We speak of "the emancipation of slaves." Let's pretend that you are someone who has lain for hundreds of years cruelly bound by rusted barbed wire, such that the slightest attempt at movement is agonizing. Now I, the great, heroic Sitaram (but you may simply call me Liberator), come along, place a chain about your ankle, cut away all that nasty barbed wire, and proclaim "You are liberated!" You seem very happy indeed. The chain is an incredibly long chain, and no ordinary chain, but made of solid gold, and it glitters and sparkles with your every movement. One day, you notice the chain, when you for the first time attempt to move beyond its limiting length, and you come to me, inquiringly. I explain to you, "Well, you are free now, aren't you? You are far more free that you were for centuries. You certainly don't expect to be totally free, now do you?"

I once asked an Imam why it was necessary for Muhammad to marry NINE wives. The explanation that I received was that they needed protection, for those times were very dangerous, and the only manner in which Mohammad could protect them was to marry them. In the Qu'ran, I forget the exact Surah now, there is a passage in which it is explained that the wives of Muhammad are the mothers of all Muslims and it would be an outrage if anyone were to marry one of Muhammad's wives after his death, since, in effect, they would be marrying their own mother! I was curious why women needing the protection of marriage would now no longer require protection as widows. Apparently, Kadijah's status as widow did not present any impediment to her marriage with Mohammad (and by the way, it was Kadijah who did the proposing, which is already fairly emancipated in my book).

Kadijah, the first wife of Mohammad, a widow herself, is credited with the honor of being the very first person to follow Mohammad as a Prophet, the very first Muslim. Tradition tells us that Mohammad was quite perplexed when the angel Gabreel first appeared to him in the cave. Mohammad related the wondrous experience to Kadijah and asked her if she thought him a madman, or in fact really a prophet. Kadijah took Mohammad to an old wise relative (I forget the details) and arrived at a decision that Mohammad was indeed a true prophet.

It is most curious that Mohammad would consult a woman on such a serious matter when we consider that, under Sharia Islamic law, the testimony of a woman has only half the value of a male's testimony (it takes the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one male). In matters of inheritance, under Islamic law, a female relative only inherits half the sum that a male relative would inherit.

Now, the Qu'ran encourages a number of worthwhile things. The Qu'ran encourages sobriety because it forbids the use of intoxicants. Unfortunately, liquor seems to be available on the black market even in the holiest of cities.

Surah 2, verse 256, encourages religious tolerance, for it says that "There shall be no coercion in matters of religion."

Yet, circa 1000 c.e., Persia (now Iran) and fallen under Muslim domination, and there are ancient Parsi (Zoroastrian) accounts of Muslims appearing outside their Parsi Fire Temples and attempting to coerce them to come to the Mosque. Most of the Zoroastrians fled Persia and came to India, where they now number under 300,000.

Some years ago, I would dine frequently at a small restaurant where a lovely young woman from Egypt, in her late 20's, was working as a waitress. I was very curious to know her feelings regarding Islam's law permitting a male to have as many as four wives. It seemed to me that, if a young woman were enthusiastic about her religion, then she would find every aspect of that religion sensible and appealing. She said, "No way! I worked hard to find just the husband I want. And he is all mine. I do not want to share him with anyone." She then told me that she knew a woman in Egypt who allowed her husband to take a second wife, because she was unable to bear children, and she wanted her husband to have children. The young waitress said that the first wife participated in the wedding ceremony as kind of a bridesmaid, and that it was sad to watch (in her opinion.)

My opinion is simply this: Show me an Islamic nation in which all women are emancipated, and then it shall make little difference to me what it is precisely that the Qu'ran does or does not encourage. But, if you cannot show me several Islamic nations (after 1500 years of Islam) in which the women are all emancipated, then you may show me all the Qu'ranic verses you like which encourage emancipation, and it shall not impress me much at all.

[Jay]

Sitaram, it's "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

[Sitaram]

(this is a continuation of my previous post, "Pie in the Sky", because I have exceeded the 10,000 character per post limitation).

What is our definition of "emancipation?" Certainly, the right to vote is very important. But just last week there was a documentary about Egypt, and they were interviewing a small town official, similar to a mayor, who worked closely with the local population, to help them with problems and material needs. He explained that, come election time, all those people he had helped throughout the year would come to this "mayor" and say: "You have helped us so much and now it is election time, so we want to repay you by casting our votes for the candidates you choose." The "mayor" explained that he would hand them a list of which candidates to vote for. Now, in such little towns, the women may be emancipated enough to have voting rights. But IF it is the case that, in PRACTICE, the people choose to treat voting as a favor to be repaid, then certainly one cannot say that this is democracy in practice. This is not what was originally envisioned when representative elected governments were first founded. Certainly, I am not saying that it is like this in every Islamic society. I am simply pointing out that there can be a vast difference between "theory and practice." Theory is what you see promised in the religious texts or the government constitutions, but practice is what you find in real life; daily life.

I recently watched that movie Monsieur Ibrahim, with Omar Sharif and Francois Dupeyron, on DVD, about an old Muslim shopkeep, in Paris, who adopts an orphaned Jewish boy. The jacket of the DVD explained that Omar Sharif's movies are banned in Egypt because he played opposite the Jewish actress, Barbra Streisand, and kissed her. I was shocked to learn this trivia fact. Such censorship will cease only when the minds and personalities of an entire society are emancipated through education and culture from the shackles of prejudice and ignorance. Only when the minds of a population are emancipated will you see actualized in practice genuine civil rights, human rights, racial equality, gender equality, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of belief and freedom to disbelieve.

http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/...x?mp=b&c=50043

The above link is to a brief biography of Omar Sharif, which mentions the bann in Egypt. One forum member assures me that his movies are shown daily in Egypt, which is pleasing news for me to hear. The wording in the biography is vague about when the bann took place, and how extensive it was.
There is something which Omar Sharif says several times in that movie which is quite germane to the question which this thread poses. Several times during the movie, the young boy asks Omar various important questions about life, and Omar simply answers, "I know what is in my Qu'ran".
We do not learn until the very end of the movie what is really meant by that statement. If I tell you what is meant, it will be a SPOILER, so I have placed the spoiler by itself on one page of my site, and here is the link:

http://toosmallforsupernova.org/sharif.htm


so do not visit and read if you have not seen the movie, because it is a real spoiler, and will rob you of the enjoyment of seeing this wonderful movie. I suggest you watch the movie first, and then visit my link.


The emancipation of any given individual, within any given society is dependent, not only upon the promises and encouragements of the scriptures and constitutions of that society, but upon the degree of liberation in the mind of the average citizen in that society. How emancipated is each mind from prejudice?

The motto of the Liberal Arts College which I attended is, "I make free men out of children with books and balance (Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque)." Education is a means to emancipation in the broadest sense of the word.

You can legislate all the civil rights and equality and human rights you please, but would you "want to hire one of them" or "would you want your daughter to marry one?" It is the answers to such questions which are the measure of civil rights and human rights, and not the simply words on the pages of books or scrolls. There are laws on the books prohibiting spitting on the sidewalks, but we still must be careful to watch where we step.

Karl Marx certainly encouraged the emancipation of the working classes: "Workers of the world, unite, for you have nothing to loose but your chains." China and the former Soviet Union had over 3 generations worth of time to put the theory into practice. Were the workers emancipated? I don't know. You tell me.

Has the Qu’ran been successful, or the Gospels or the Torah? There are 15 million Jews in the world today, over one billion Muslims and over one billion Christians. How do we measure success? Is majority rule what is key? Is truth a popularity contest?

Here is a fascinating and instructive exercise for us to undertake.

Consider the following statement:

"The Gospels encourage forgiveness": what is your opinion of this statement.

I am going to tell you up front (cart-before-the-horse-style) that the Gospels are very in-your-face encouraging forgiveness but the majority of Christians (with the interesting exception of the Amish) are short on forgiveness and long on vengeance.

I say this right up front so that the reader will not begin to feel anxiety that I am about to embark upon some Qu'ran bashing by means of some Gospel praising.

Kurt Vonnegut made the astute observation that American Christians are always clamoring to erect monuments and plaques with the Ten Commandments of Moses, but no one ever thinks to erect anything with the Beatitudes of Jesus. It was the Beatitudes of Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" which were Gandhi's favorite, and not the "Ten Commandments" on the stone tablets which Moses brought down from Sinai.

My motif in this post has been a consideration of things that "work well in theory but do not work at all in practice" and I have broadened the scope of this motif to include not only the scriptures of all religions in general, but also the constitutions of governments. I feel I am trying my best to be non-partisan in this regard.

When I see television documentaries about convicted murderers on death row, in states which are predominantly populated by "bible belt" fundamentalist Christians, and I see throngs of those Christians clamoring for an execution so that "justice might be served" then I cannot help but come away with the feeling that forgiveness, in the Gospels, worked very well in theory but hardly at all in practice; the day to day practice of those professing to be practicing Christians.

If it should be the case that a reader arrives at the subjective conclusion that the theoretical Quranic encouragement of emancipation is a failure in practice, then I hasten to remind that reader that Islam is not alone in its failures, and we may place such failure sided by side with Christianity's failure to recreate the world as people born again with a spirit of forgiveness.

I mentioned one exception to the failure of Christianity to embody forgiveness in daily life: the Amish. Several years ago, I posted something entitled "Forgiveness and the Amish". The Amish are a very small fringe group in Christianity which most mainstream Christians perhaps do not even regard as being Christian at all, but perhaps view them as schismatics or heretics or some misguided sect.

I would like to share with you an excerpt of what I wrote about a traumatic event which took place in a small Amish community and how poignantly and dramatically it illustrates how the Amish succeeded in forgiveness to a degree which greatly surpasses the shortcoming of mainstream Christianity.

Here is one Christian group's take on women's emancipation/liberation:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f003.html

[Sitaram]

(This is a continuation of the previous post #21, "What does it mean to be emancipated", as I am approaching the legal limit of character length.)


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atla...25/page314.htm

A few years ago, there was a news item about a crime comitted against a teenage Amish girl by a man who was not Amish.

Several things in the news story were very interesting and instructive.

The Amish felt so strongly about the importance of forgiveness that they all went to court and pleaded for leniency for the accused.

One rarely sees ordinary Christians of other denominations taking the importance of forgiveness so seriously that they would strive to forgive a heinous criminal. They barely seem capable sometimes of being tolerant or civil to Christians of other denominations with slightly different doctrines, practices or beliefs.

The other thing of interest was what happened during the crime. The man abducted the teenage girl and drove off to a secluded area. He ordered her to undress. All she did was remove her shoes. He became angry and ordered her to continue to remove the rest of her clothes. She said, "A cannot do that, it is sinful." So he took a knife and cut the clothing to remove it.

In the courtroom trial, this shredded and cut clothing became highly significant evidence. The court used it as the strongest form of proof that the girl did not engage in consentual activity.

I am sure that the young girl did not have a clever legal mind to realize at the very oment of the crime the result of her refusal to undress. She simply very innocently felt that if she participated and cooperated, that her guilt of sin would be increased.

So often in various situations, we are unaware of the long term effects of our subtle choices and behavior.

The best forms of moral/ethical behavior are those which arise as second nature, without our thinking much about them, from long ingrained habits.

Sow a thought, reap an action.
Sow an action, reap a habit.
Sow a habit, reap a character.
Sow a character, reap a destiny.

Derrida, a proponent of Postmodernism, once said that "Genuine forgiveness, if such a thing is possible at all, is to be found only in the face of the unforgivable." (paraphrased from memory)

What are the prerequisites for emancipation?

If I might have your permission to "jack up" the topic of this thread to the highest question of all, not simply regarding Islam, but all religions, and not simply regarding the important issue of emancipation, but regarding that which is the prerequesite and sine qua non of all other human rights, namely PEACE; in what way do the religions and constitutions of the world encourage peace, for, before we can have liberty and equality and fraternity and emancipation and wisdom and enlightenment and the heavenly host of other wonderful things we seek, we must above all, achieve lasting, world-wide peace. We still seem to be some distance from the goal of world peace. I am sure it is just around the corner.

It is small consolation to be emancipated if people are shooting at you and bombing you.

You know, I think we should ask Jimmy Carter to post his opinion in this thread. Now, Jimmy happens to be a personal friend of mine.

(Sitaram shouts)

"Hey, Jimmy, come on over hear and take a look at this thread and tell us what you think!"

On my bookshelf I have an interesting book that was published in 1978 called The 100, by Michael Hart. It is a ranking of the most influential persons in history. I disagree with a lot of Hart's opinions. For instance, he ranks Jesus third, behind Muhammad and Isaac Newton (Buddha, Confuscius and St. Paul come next). Despite this, it is an intriguing text, with some thought-provoking analyses. For eample, Hart explains that he ranks Muhammad first because he was the sole founder of Islam, while Jesus and Paul share the responsibility for Christianity. Muhammad was also a great secular leader, while Jesus Christ refused to accept any worldly authority.


What is most pertinent is the author's description of the unique message of Christ. Almost all religions adopt some form of the Golden Rule as a premise, but Jesus was alone in commanding that we forgive enemies, turn the other cheek, or walk a second mile. Hart then quotes the text for this lesson and says that if these words and others from the Sermon on the Mount "were widely followed, I would have no hesitation in placing Jesus first in this book."


- from Sources of Strength by Jimmy Carter
Chapter 5, The Special Message
Page 20

Jimmy Carter points out that it is the failure of practicing Christians themselves to actualize in day-to-day practice in their lives that spirit of forgiveness which their scripture encourages in theory that prevents an author like Michael Hart from taking Jesus more seriously.

[Nightshade]

Im still reading but

The jacket of the DVD explained that Omar Sharif's movies are banned in Egypt because he played opposite the Jewish actress, Barbra Streisand, and kissed her. I was shocked to learn this trivia fact. Such censorship will cease only when the minds and personalities of an entire society are emancipated through education and culture from the shackles of prejudice and ignorance.

sorry thats a load of rubbish They show lots of Omar sharif films in Egypt on channel 2 at night and chanell one between one and three in the afternon on week days
( this also includes films made before omar sharif became "omar sharif" and was still usuing his real jewish name (he was born an Egtyptien Jew).
I havent seen that film that is true but then all films shown on tv in Egypt are automatically censored to a family guidance so depending on the rating of the film it maynot be shown.

[Nightshade]

Almost all religions adopt some form of the Golden Rule as a premise, but Jesus was alone in commanding that we forgive enemies, turn the other cheek, or walk a second mile.

humm there is an ayah of the Quran that I cant quite remeber where from that goes somthing like:
If angered God loves the non-violent, God loves those who contain there dispelsure and do not react but most of all God loves the one who forgives"
It sort of goes on in that vain for a while about who forgiving is the greatest strength and to do so will make you a better muslim and person and repeap rewards etc.

Actually one of the most trully annoying things you can say to someone who has made you mad (and this really does work especially if they are a muslim with any religous conscince) is"May God forgive you"

Anyway What I think is that emanciption is not trully a definition that is cross cultural.
what I mean is that to differant socities restraints may seem different.

A couple of years ago we moved to the UK (back for my mum as she is British but its the first time I have lived here) anyway as a teenage girl I kept getting ask questions like doesnt it annoy you that you wont be able to drink alchol date etc!
and isnt it like an impingment on your freedom and the answer is no!
I may be really lucky but I have never found the differances betwwen men and women a problem if anything it has always worked in my favour.
Get on a crowded bus Im a girl some male person will get up and I will sit! If Im ever in trouble I just have to scream and I know for sure that in Egypt at least twenty men will come running to help me!

Yes the culture doesnt except men and women as being the same coz lets face it there not but I dont think it really impinges on a girls freedom as such.

Also the developed world may think it has emancipated women but the truth is I think there are just as many boandarise as there are in the arb world there just slightly more hiddenthan before.

[Sitaram]

It makes me feel happy and releaved to learn that Sharif's movies are shown in Egypt.

You have aroused my curiosity as to Omar Sharif's religion.

All I can find, so far, is the following:

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1051544.htm

WILLIAMS: Born a Catholic, converted to Islam at one point, I mean what are your beliefs now?


SHARIF: I have none that I can prove. I believe in everything and in nothing. I don’t disbelieve in anything. I mean everything is possible. As far as my brain tells me I don’t believe because I believe that God is justice. The first thing that I was taught at catechist, catechism was that God is justice and I don’t see justice in the world. I see terrible injustice. I saw my mother when on her deathbed, she just died four years ago, she was a great believer and I sat next to her fifteen days while she suffered terribly before she died and I saw what relief she got from believing, from calling the Virgin Mary, from calling Jesus Christ to her help. From calling Saint Anthony of Padua who was our Saint, favourite Saint. It relieved her pain and I use to think what shall I say on my deathbed or who shall I call for help? And I decided that I will call my mother for help. That’s what I’ll say, I’ll say “mother come and get me wherever you are”.

This biographical link
http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/page...if/index.shtml

gives Sharif's original name as Michel Shahoub

It is VERY INTERESTING for me to learn from that link the original French title of Monsieur Ibrahim

Monsieur Ibrahim et les fleurs du Coran

[Nightshade]

Blahhhhhhhhhhh
ignore previous post I think Sitaram added to her firt post and I missed that.
did only one wife survive him aisha wasnt it??
anyway I thought she did remarry.... no maybe that was asma her sister oh she proposed to her husband too.

[Sitaram]

If my poor aging memory serves me correctly, on the day of Muhammad's death, he requested to be with his youngest and favorite wife, Aiyesha, but other wives were present. Kadijah was his first wife, and it is my understanding that only after she passed away did he take other wives, but I would have to research that to be certain.
Tradition says that Muhammad died very slowly over a three year period as the result of eating a poisoned dish of lamb served to him by a woman who had a grudge against him.

There are some wonderful links which allow you to download the entire Qu'ran, in English. The one I use has each verse in triplicate translations by Pickthall, Yusufali, and I always forget the third translator. I shall look it up momentarily.

[Nightshade]

I have an english (yousef ali) and an arabic hard copy of the qaran thanks but yeah Kadijah died in what is know as the Year of Misery when she was 60 odd and Muhammed was still in his forties then he married the other wives.

[Sitaram]

The third tranlator, whose name I could not remember, is Shakir (along with Yusufali and Pickthall).

Here are two links to Qu'ran translations, but I cannot find the link that I used just last week to get the 3 translations together.


http://www.adam2.org/dir/Society/Rel...uran/index.cgi

http://geocities.com/infoquran/pickth.txt

033.053 O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.

- from the tranlation of Muhammed Marmaduke Pickthall

We also see here, the verse which is the origin of the practice of women taking what is called in some countries Purdah, or the veil.

http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/purdah.html

Generally, those women in the upper and middle class are more likely to practice all aspects of purdah because they can afford to not work outside the home.

Purdah probably developed in Persia and later spread to Middle Eastern lands. Purdah flourished in ancient Babylon. No woman could go outside unless masked and chaperoned by a male from the family. Even parts of the household were separated as a practice of segregation. The ancient Assyrian women also had to remain inside behind curtains where darkness and little breeze prevailed. In the 7th century A.D., during the Arab conquest of what is now Iran, the Muslims probably adapted the idea of purdah to their religion. The Prophet Muhammad reintroduced the custom as part of the Islamic tenets of faith. As time went by the laws associated with purdah became more severe. During the British domination in India, the observance of purdah was very strictly adhered to and widespread among the Muslims.

[Nightshade]

when I was at school I had to tachers who interpprited that ayah in differant ways either the wives of the prophet is just that or its a metaphore for every muslim woman.