MUSLIMS STRIKE AT SPOUSE ABUSE

[PsychoDad]

MUSLIMS STRIKE AT SPOUSE ABUSE
Kristin E. Holmes, Inquirer, 6/17/05

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/11914551.htm

The veil shrouding spouse abuse in Muslim families is being torn away by local mosque leaders - putting them at the forefront of efforts by American Muslims to stem domestic violence.

The clergy council known as the Majlis Ash'Shura of Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley has adopted a tough policy of public shunning of Muslims who abuse their spouses or abandon their families.

Under the initiative, adopted last month, offenders will go on a list circulated among area Muslims. They will be banned from future marriages in communities that adhere to the policy. Fellow Muslims will be discouraged from patronizing any businesses they own.
...
Domestic violence appears no more prevalent in Muslim communities than elsewhere, but Islamic advocacy groups and others have tried to push the problem into the open.

[brainpan]

1. Honor beatings

Well, it is a good first step. I wonder how they reconcile their prohibition upon beating women with the Koranic directive to use force on disobedient wives?

[PsychoDad]

2. Good question.

"And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among your yourselves so that you may dwell in peace and tranquility with them. And He has ordained between you love and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for those who reflect." (Quran 30:21).

"None honors women except he who is honorable, and none despises them except he who is despicable." (Muhammad (pbuh) Hadith).

I think the majority of evidence in the Quran and Hadith auctally forbid cruelity and violence toward women.

As you can see from the above verse and hadith the Quran requires that spouses treat each other with love and mercy. (Quran 30:21). Moreover, the Quran repeatedly warns against the use of injurious or harsh statements by a husband against his wife. (Quran 58:2-4).

The verse you cite is often used by ignorant and abusive muslims to justify their cruelity toward their wives. While domestic violence is out of hand in many communities around the world, it is even more reprehensible when a religion is used to support and excuse it, as if saying, "I did it because God told me I could". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The verse you cite is 4:34, where is some translations the arabic word Adriboo has been translated as to strike, I think that and a bit more in the verse have been misinterpeted and mistranslated.

So let us take a closer look at that verse, as I am not a scholar, I shall refer to the opinion of Mohammed Abdul Malek who is a Qur'anic Scholar and a prolific writer on Islam, based in Surrey, England

"If ever there has been a controversial verse in the Holy Qur'an, it certainly is verse 4:34. Used by opponents of Islam to label this religion woman-unfriendly (to put it mildly), Muslims themselves are struggling with interpreting it. For yes, let us agree about this: there is no such thing as “the” one and only correct interpretation of the Word of Allah – only Allah knows what He meant. We can only try to understand. And in this particular case, an alternative for the troublesome interpretations of this verse may bring us a bit closer to that objective.

Let us have a look at a (partial) translation of this verse 1:

"Men are the {qawwam} of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are {qanitat}, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear {nushooz}, admonish them first, then refuse to share their beds, and finally {adriboo} them; but when they {ataa:} to you, then seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, great above you all. "

Disobedient women?

The key word to answer this question is {qanitat}, which is a feminine plural of {qanit}, based on the root {q-n-t}. This word appears on many other occasions in the NobleA Qur'an 2, where it is used exclusively in the sense of 'submissive, obedient to Allah'. Verse 4:34 contains no reason at all to depart from this meaning and to change it into 'obedience to a husband'. This verse is about pious women who, just like pious men, are obedient to Allah. And a wife (husband) who is obedient to God, must live up to her (his) marital duties.

Superior husband and inferior wife?

Throughout the Noble Qur'an, Allah emphasizes that men and women are equal for Him – Allah will judge them in exactly the same way 3. So it would be strange indeed if a verse would contradict this equality. But is that really the case here? The Arabic word used is {qawwam}, an intensive form of {qaim}, meaning: 'to take care of, to stand up for, to look after'. Therefore, does this verse say that men are superior to women? Not at all. It says: men must look after women. In Islam, men are obliged to financially provide for their wife and children. They have to pay for their housing, clothing, food, medicines, etc. That is what {qawwamoona} means: men must take care of women.

Misbehavior?

Is this verse about what a man should do when his wife 'misbehaves'? The exact word used here, {nushooz}, means 'discord, hostility, dissonance'. In this context it could be interpreted as 'marital problems'.

Beating his wife?

The verse instructs a husband whose wife causes problems in their marriage to first talk to her about it, then leave the marital bed, then {adriboo} his wife, and all of this in view of pursuing a reconciliation as is evident from the subsequent verse 4:35.

ADRIBOO

The Arabic word used here, {adriboo}, from the root {d-r-b}, has several dozens of meanings, such as: 'to beat', but also: 'to forsake, to avoid, to separate, to leave, to part'.

How do we know which interpretation to choose? One way to find out is to relate this verse to other verses in the Glorious Qur'an and to check if the meanings make sense. In this case, let us look at verse 24:2, which describes what should be done in case of adultery:

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." (Noble Qur'an 24:2) 4

This verse establishes the principle that for men and women, equal actions lead to equal punishment. When for adultery men and women must receive equal punishment, surely there is no reason why they should be treated differently for any lesser marital problem.

Now let us take a look at the consequences of interpreting {adriboo} one way or another.

Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to beat'.

In this case, verse 4:34 says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed, then beat her and all of this in view of increasing his chances of a reconciliation. On the emotional level, this certainly does not sound like a very promising course of action. So let us check this meaning against the bigger framework and in particular against the principle of 'equal behaviour leads to equal punishment'. This would imply that when a husband causes a problem in the marriage, his wife can beat him. At which he could invoke verse 4:34 to beat her again, so that the result would be a perpetual physical fight between spouses! Surely, this makes no sense at all. And indeed, it is not what Allah prescribes for the situation where a husband causes a rift, as will be explained in a moment.

Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to forsake, to avoid', possibly, as Mohammed Abdul Malek 5 suggests: 'to separate, to part'.

Now what do we get? Verse 4:34 now says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed (forsaking his sexual satisfaction), then avoid her even more (not talking to her anymore, leaving the room when she enters it, and possibly even leaving the house for a while), in order to prevent things from getting worse, and on the contrary to let things cool down and create enough space in view of increasing chances of a reconciliation.

This sounds like a very logical chain of events.

Also, application of the general rule of verse 24:2 ('equal actions, equal punishment') now means that when a husband causes a marital problem, his wife should forsake a few of her rights, avoid her husband in increasing ways, and try to work towards a reconciliation. And yes, that is precisely what verse 4:128 says:

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves" (Glorious Qur'an 4:128) 4

Understanding {adriboo} as 'to forsake, to (gradually) avoid (more and more), possibly eventually leave altogether', clearly makes sense when relating several verses to one another.

And there is more. Beating a wife, would contradict hadiths of the Noble Prophet who repeatedly said: “do not beat believing women!”. It would also contradict the Noble Prophet's instructions about anger – which he explained to originate from Satan and which he described as "a living coal on one's heart". One should not act upon ones anger, lest one would do things one would regret later. When you are angry when you are standing, sit down, the Prophet (pbuh) said. And when you are still angry when you are sitting, then lie down. Interpreting this verse as allowing a husband to beat his wife, surely contradicts these rulings on anger.

Furthermore, Allah says in the Noble Qur'an that one must meet bad behaviour with something that is better, not with something that is worse, in order to turn a hostile situation into a friendly one:

"Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!" (Noble Qur'an 41:13) 4

Therefore the word {adriboo} cannot really have meant “to beat”, can it?. It must mean something that is better than causing problems, and avoiding the problem certainly is exactly that.

Based on the evidence presented here, it would seem that interpreting {adriboo} as 'to beat', causes several internal conflicts with the meaning of other Qur'anic verses and hadiths, while interpreting it as 'gradually forsaking, more and more and possibly leaving altogether', is a much more logical interpretation that is entirely consistent with the interpretation of other rules in the Glorious Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Noble Prophet Muhammad.

What makes much more sense, is that this verse does not allow a 'superior' husband to 'beat' his 'inferior, disobedient' wife. On the contrary, this verse appears to tell us that a husband must look after his wife (an equal partner who, like he, is obedient to God), and that when his wife is causing problems in their marriage, he should first talk to her about it, if that doesn't help, he should begin avoiding her by leaving the marital bed. If that still doesn't resolve the situation, he should forsake her presence even more, avoid conversations, leave a room when she enters it, avoid her company altogether, and possibly leave the house for a while, so that no problems are added to the conflict, and so that things can cool down a bit to maximize chances for a later reconciliation.

Return to obedience?

When the problem is solved, when the wife is committed to the marriage again, then the husband is advised not to keep using the incident against her and to consider the incident closed.

The exact Arabic wording is: "when then they (fem.pl.) {aTa:} (with) you (masc.pl.), then seek not against them (fem.pl) means of annoyance". The verb {aTa:} (alif taa alif ayn) has several meanings, such as: 'obey', but also: 'comply, comply with, accommodate, give in to', or in French 'filer doux'. Consequently, the verse can be understood to mean: "when then they are committed to the marriage again", or: "when then they give in to/comply with the efforts of the husband to save the marriage", or "when they no longer cause marriage problems", ... Linguistically there is no compelling necessity to translate {aTa:} as "obedient to the husband" . Other interpretations are possible and indeed preferable. Earlier in the verse, there was no reason at all to translate {qanitat} as women who are "obedient to their husband" so that here there isn't any reason to imply that this verse is about a temporary disobedience and a subsequent return to obedience to their husbands. It is not a matter of obedience to him, it is a matter of {nushooz} (marriage problems). And the Noble Qur'an advises that when one of the partners causes a marriage problem, the other should gradually avoid the person who causes the problem, in order to save the marriage - irrespective of who started the strife (4:34, 4:128)

Yet of course, this is only an interpretation. Allah knows best. "

Indeed. And here is a link to a position paper from the Muslim Women's Leauge on the subject of spousal abuse :http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mwlusa.org%2Fpublications%2Fpositionpapers%2Fviolence.html

A good question, and Peace unto you. :D

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Thank you for this

It includes a lot of good and useful information.

[smirkymonkey]

4. I have a question, though you may not know the answer but

I'll try. It seems that most of the reported violence toward women that refer to Islam occurs in Arabic countries - is this somehow more of a cultural thing (as opposed to Indonesians or Bosnians) than a religious thing?

[sam sarrha]

6. desert nomadic cultures seem to have harsher cultural morals

[PsychoDad]

8. I would say it's cultural.

The condition of arabian women was pretty bad before the comming of Muhammid(saw), who declared that women were equal in the eyes of God, could not be forced into marrage, and had rights as did men, and than seemed to regress again afterward.

I think the trend is changing. All around Saudi Arabia women are gaining more and more rights.. so the facade is cracking. Even in SA cases of spousal abuse are being reported and becoming part of the social discourse, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.

Yes, I think Saudi Arabia will be the last to change, but the force of history is on the side of change.

[brainpan]

5. Thanks for the thought-provoking answer. (n/t)

.

[Igel]

7. When the directives come out of Al-Azhar in Egypt,

from the top dogs at al-Aqsa and in Mecca and Medina, or even just Qom and Karbala, I'll take notice.

A bunch of upstart Muslims in the west decides on it, and it'll promptly be labelled "innovation" among the worst, frequently the most prestigious and weighty, offenders.