Males and females: Are they equal?

I write this in the first place knowing fully well that the views or time tested knowledge to be expressed or restated here respectively would not be well received by a great many number who are prone to sailing with the wind or automatically doing or believing whatever things are in vogue.
In functions to observe the International Women's Day, it was declared by ones who are in the highest levels of the government in Bangladesh today that all laws now barring women from enjoying equal rights with males, would be changed to ensure such equality for women.
Now, my question is : whether the government leaders are authorized in any way to change Koranic laws also that now govern many areas of rights involving women in Bangladesh ? Or, would we remain Muslims if we try to change in the least clear suggestions in the Holy Koran about these rights for Muslims accept at the level of the individual and in states with clear Islamic identities that not even a dot or a dash in the Holy Koran cannot be changed since these have come from Almighty Allah or represent his commandments.
The Holy Koran, for example, allows women to inherit property but not in the same measure as men. Women's share of property is less than that of what is given to man. So, are we to conclude that Almighty Allah knows not what is best for women and had discriminated against women by allowing more to men than to women ? In the Holy Koran, men and women are exhorted that they both enjoy rights on each other and puts them roughly on the same level in the enjoyment of these rights. But there are clear statements in some verses of the Holy Koran also that Almighty Allah gave a higher position to man in relation to woman . Thus in sub-section 228 of section 28 of Sura Al-Baqara in the Holy Koran it is stated that " women have rightful rights on men as men have on women. But men have special honour over women. And Allah is Most Powerful, Most Wise."
A daughter is allowed by Koranic directive to inherit a share of the property of her deceased father, but a brother gets a bigger share. If our women promoters can have their way, they would upturn this Koranic dictum and have the same replaced with an act of parliament to give females shares in property equal to males. But can such laws at all be enacted in conflict with the Holy Koran or will the people in general accept such a move. So far, nowhere else in Islamic countries such an initiative to have laws in conflict with the Holy Koran have been taken.
Will Bangladesh blaze out a unique trail in this regard or what would be the consequences of doing it ? Surely, it will be transparently anti-Islamic or anti-Koranic in the first place. Its other fallouts could be allowing the triggering of serious agitation against the same ruining social and political stability. Bangladesh's population is presently split roughly half and half between males and females. The move to have women's property rights increased will alienate the 50 per cent of the male population because most of them are likely to consider it as highly prejudicial to them. Thus, the harmonious relationship between the sexes in the country could take a severe beating. Hostile and opposing camps could be created in homes with males taking one side and the females another although numerous Islam abiding women in the country do probably wish to see the status quo remaining as per the Koranic instruction. On the whole, such a law instead of helping to create a more harmonious and happier society could lead to more social and political dissensions and embitterment all around. Furthermore, the law would be unjust as it would not be supported by any real basis that men and women are equal and should, therefore, enjoy equal rights in all matters.
There is noted divine wisdom in giving more property share to a male inheritor because the male inheritor replacing the deceased father as brother or son usually carries on heavier duties of looking after the family well-being. It is seen in too many cases that the son after the death of the father shoulders the family burden entirely as a bread-earner for the whole family and even acts out a father like role for his unmarried sisters in marrying them off and educating and rearing them from his earnings and inherited resources. Besides, the son only directly inherits from the father whereas the daughter inherits directly both from her husband and her parents and gets her 'mohar' ( an ample payment in cash or kind for marrying from her husband). So, the Koranic laws are in no way unfair in giving women lower property rights as they are compensated significantly in other ways. One may contend that the greater familial responsibilities are not seen to be borne by many males. But these are deviations that do not disprove the rule which is that generally males are saddled with greater responsibilities.
Indeed, Almighty Allah in His infinite wisdom could not be more just and right in both declaring males to be superior and giving them special honour, rights and respects over women. This plain truth about gender inequality is galling to women libbers but would surely be found to be a reality on impartial and scientific examination. Ever since mankind came into existence, this inequality has persisted. For instance, note that the description mankind and not womankind is used most extensively to describe the human species everywhere. Thus, even ordinary human vocabulary--everywhere--started off with this gender bias toward males since time immemorial. In the description of one and only God as a pronoun in all major religions of the world, God is conceived to be male like in power and called 'him' and not her. Invitation cards issued in all languages and cultures everywhere in the world are issued in the name of Mr and Mrs such and such and not the other way around to underline the supremacy of males in the order of precedence. Thus, Hilary Rodham, the unsuccessful candidate for the last US Presidential election, introduces herself as Hilary Rodham Clinton using the name and title of her husband to identify her and does not decide to drop this identification linked to her husband to demonstrate her unique and fully self-supporting female identity. But there is no need for former President Bill Clinton to similarly declare his identification with his wife. In official forms to be filled in most countries of the world by applicants , the requirement mainly is to declare the name of the father of the applicant. Only in some cases, the name of the mother is also demanded but as a subsidiary one after the father.
Thousands and thousands of examples can be cited in this manner to show that in all countries, in all societies and in all ages, men generally tended to have an upper hand or a position over women affirming the supremacy of the former. And this supremacy was attained and maintained not necessarily through any unfairness or coercion but came naturally such as in the Darwinian principle of ' the survival or supremacy of the fittest' in nature. Men are generally and on the whole found to be stronger than females. For example, the fastest attained world record in 100 metre sprint for males in athletic events is 9.58 seconds and nobody has surpassed this record . For females, it is 10.49 seconds or 0.91 seconds less than the male record. This difference in performance between the man sprinter and the woman sprinter will remain notwithstanding how hard the best woman sprinter tries to equal or surpass the best male record in this respect. This can be said conclusively from analyzing recorded data of athletic events over many years. For both males and females, the time in finishing the sprint became shorter over the years but the vital difference in the timing between the best male record and the female record with the dominant position of the male sprinter, remains unchanged. A strong female can do body building and come nearer to the strength of Mr universe. But she will never equal or surpass him in strength.
The point is that by God's or nature's design women generally have been made physically weaker to males. There are, of course, weak males and some strong females are stronger than them. But these are exceptions and do not prove the rule which is that men generally are physically stronger than women. There is no equality between them in this respect. That is why men and not women have been the conquerors, prophets, leaders and in the very front rank of all human endeavours throughout the ages in all countries and civilizations.
Not only women have been physically and generally weaker, intellectually also they could only compete with males but could not surpass them decisively. Of course, some women are found to be intellectually or academically far superior to some men. But they are not many in number. Generally, men both in terms of their brain and brawns surpass females by a big margin that make them natural leaders in most fields. God and nature appear to have designed an existence partly for females exclusively as mothers and homemakers. Only women can have babies and rear them better than men. These are the areas where females have been given superiority by the Almighty Creator. Men can generally do well in almost all fields. But their physical limitations naturally restrict such a role for females such as women are generally found not fit for services in the combat sections of the armed forces, in the police or other activities requiring regular special physical endurance and strength. For a part of the month, women of reproductive age experience menstruation that also limit their physical and mental capacities for hard work considerably. Men have no such problem.
Thus, the idea of gender equality is more in the imagination of people than a realistic goal to be realized. Man has come to dominate 'naturally' and as part of the design of the Almighty Creator. He is not usurping anybody's rights or due possessions by willful brute force and cunning but finds himself naturally thrust into positions of supremacy and leadership that women cannot fill.
If there should be any calls for redressing women's grievances, then that should relate to women getting their permissible religious rights and allowed to work as per the capacities they actually have. It should not be muddled with an utopian dream of making women equal to men or even superior to men.
As for the mainly advocacies of western origin that Bangladesh should practice more gender equality, the same only shows up their great hypocrisies about advising others while remaining completely insensitive to the same on their part. Let us look at conditions in the USA, the biggest and most powerful western country in this respect. In the USA during its 234 years of history, no female President ever graced the White House, the supreme symbol of power and authority in that country. Only during the last Presidential election a female aspirant for the Presidency emerged. But she was not even given the nomination by her own party and the male bias has had a role in such a decision. More women get raped in a single day in New York city than possibly the entire tally of such cases for five years in Bangladesh. Sexual harassments at work places are very common incidents in the USA and women there have come to accept the same in most cases pathetically as a reality that they can do little to change. The scene is more or less the same in most other western countries.
Feminism has emerged in the western countries. But the feminists of today are of a far different kind than the ones noted in the early part of the last century who struggled for the rightful realizations of women's rights such as voting rights and equal pay for equal work at work places. Today's feminists in those countries in the name of women's liberation would want to redraw the relations between the sexes or make females the superior sex in society on the plea of bridging the so called gender inequality.
We live at a time when self declared feminists in these countries can even make name and fame quickly by saying that in the human sex act where males take the dominant position, this involves application of brute male force on females to be only avoided and hated. In the name of feminism, therefore, they would rather remain spinsters for life and asking to be respected for their choice. Surely most women with normal views and feelings about sexuality would reject the suggestions from such women libbers.
There was a time when patriotism was revered. Lord Nelson who won the Battle of Trafalgar and in whose memory the Trafalgar Square in London was commemorated , was knighted by the Queen of England. That was something very aptly done to make perfect sense in all ages. But can we say the same a century after when a singer styling half like a male and half like a female, he or she (?) also gets knighthood bestowed on him. Even law was promoted in Britain supported by the honourable members of its parliament, to allow man to marry man and woman to marry woman notwithstanding that such marriages would be unnatural.
The purists and moralists stand to be isolated and incur the wrath of some articulate sections of people in the developed countries for criticizing or opposing such gay marriages or homosexuality. So, we are passing through a time when even homosexuality is sought to be encouraged or legitimized as the right thing to do. But Sodom and Gomorrah, the two cities mentioned in the Bible and the Koran, were destroyed by God for practicing unnatural or immoral sexual behavior. Surely, before they were destroyed the practitioners of such queer sex must have thought that there was nothing objectionable or naturally deviant with their conduct and their novel ways of sexuality need to be only upheld and adopted by other peoples.
Why these things are stated here ? These things are discussed here because like in many other countries of the world the notions of feminism and, specially the idea that females should attain parity with males, are peddled with a lot of zest these days in Bangladesh. But in actuality it is becoming more like an advocacy for females not only to enjoy their rational or permissible rights but to surpass the same. This is where the objections must come.