Bananas, Cucumbers, and the Politics of Gendered Morality in Islam

Shimba Theological Institute

Newsletter Article
Bananas, Cucumbers, and the Politics of Gendered Morality in Islam

In recent decades, a number of reports and fatwas emerging from certain Islamic contexts have gained notoriety for their unusual—and deeply gendered—approach to sexuality. Among the most striking examples are clerical warnings issued against women consuming or even looking at objects such as cucumbers and bananas, on the grounds that these fruits allegedly provoke immoral thoughts. While these pronouncements might sound comical on the surface, they reflect a much deeper cultural and theological problem: the disproportionate moral burden placed upon women, contrasted with a conspicuous leniency extended to men.

The policing of female sexuality in Islam has historically been tied to notions of family honor and social stability, wherein women’s bodies become sites of communal control. The prohibition of masturbation, the banning of sexual aids, and even restrictions on seemingly neutral foods underscore a worldview in which female desire is constructed as inherently dangerous and in need of containment. By contrast, in numerous Islamic traditions, men have historically been afforded a wide margin of sexual freedom, sometimes extending to permissiveness in cases of bestiality, which, though repugnant, has been disturbingly minimized by certain jurists. This double standard reveals an asymmetry not only in practice but also in theological imagination, where male transgression is trivialized while female embodiment is demonized.

Theologically, such rulings expose the fragility of a system that cannot articulate a positive doctrine of the body, desire, and pleasure. Rather than acknowledging sexuality as a divine gift, certain Islamic discourses recast the female form and even neutral objects as latent weapons of sin. The image of a woman forbidden from holding a cucumber, lest she succumb to temptation, reflects not divine law but clerical anxiety. Ironically, this creates a parody of morality itself: a universe in which fruit is feared, women are hyper-policed, and men are excused from responsibility. What emerges is not holiness but hypocrisy—a distortion of justice, equity, and divine order.

By contrast, the biblical and Christian theological tradition presents a radically different anthropology. The body is created good (Genesis 1:31), sexuality is sanctified within covenantal marriage (Hebrews 13:4), and moral responsibility is not gendered but universal (Galatians 3:28). Instead of reducing women to potential vectors of temptation, Scripture calls both men and women to holiness, accountability, and mutual honor. It is this vision of equality, justice, and embodied dignity that exposes the absurdity of clerics who fear cucumbers more than corruption, and bananas more than sin.

Conclusion:
The cucumber and banana fatwas should not merely amuse us; they should alert us to the depth of theological distortion that occurs when patriarchal anxieties replace divine revelation. At stake is not the morality of fruit but the integrity of human dignity, especially that of women, who deserve liberation from the crushing weight of such arbitrary and unequal moral codes. True holiness cannot be legislated through fear of vegetables but must be grounded in a biblical vision of the body as God’s temple, where freedom, dignity, and grace prevail.

— Shimba Theological Institute

---