Comment Moderation is on due to spamming.

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Islamophobia on wife-beating - much ado about nothing

What this article is about -

This article takes a look at yet another form of Islamophobia - ie the warped idea that Islam allows wife to be abused, beaten and treated inhumanely.


Over-reaction due to ignorance and lack of understanding -

There appears to be an over-reaction from some parties due to ignorance and lack of understanding of the teachings of Islam. The link below pertains to "wife beating".

Singapore’s Muslim marriage courses under fire
Singapore’s leading association for Muslim converts, Darul Arqam, has begun an internal investigation into lecturer misconduct after several attendees of the organization’s pre-marriage courses voiced concerns over violent and sexist content in the lectures and course materials. Specifically, attendees allege that male students are encouraged to beat wives who refuse to submit to sex, while female students are taught that if they refuse sex with their husbands angels of Allah would curse them.

Singaporean gender equality advocacy group, AWARE, has begun an investigation into the claims. The Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport (MCYS) has also been alerted.

Here is Darul Arqam's reply to the above. Darul Arqam disputes sexist allegations


Islamic perspective -

For all the hooha that the news try to portray that Islam propagates wife-beating, no Muslim scholar has interpreted or encouraged the interpretation of the one particular verse that mentions wife-beating to be used as a form of humiliation or abuse. It is the the ignorant who have been interpreting it as such. Here is the Quranic verse - Sura 4:34 (Yusuf Ali's translation)

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Here is an interpretation of the above:

Wife Beating in Islamic Perspective
Name of Questioner: Asif
Reply date: 2012/04/30

Question: Respected scholars! Does Islam allow wife beating? Some husbands are violent and they say that the Qur'an allows them to beat their wives. Is there any logical explanation given regarding men being allowed to beat their wives, as stated in surat An-Nisa', verse 34?

consultant: Jamal Badawi
consultant: Muzammil Siddiqi

Answer:

...snip...

It is important to read the section (Sura 3:34-35) fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word "beating" is used in the verse, but it does not mean "physical abuse". The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

Note that in the immediate link above, there are many verses quoted which tell us that the Quran expects the woman to be respected. So for all the claims by certain parties that allege Islam does not respect women, it is seen that the allegation is false.

As for "wife-beating" in Islam, it must be remembered that the beating must not be done with the intention to cause physical hurt, but more of an expression of disapproval.


Another opinion here. Wife Beating in Islam: Permissible?
Name of Questioner: Muslim
Reply date: 2011/04/21

Question: As-Salamu 'Alaykum, I have recently read a fatwa where the mufti states that it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife if she refuses to have intercourse with him. What are the conditions under which physically rebuking the wife, with force, becomes necessary? Muslim men take these types of fatwas as license to become dictators inside the home.

Mufti: Sheikh Gamal Qutb

Answer:

Responding to your question, Sheikh Gamal Qutb, the Ex-Head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar Ash-Shareef, stated,
As for beating a wife which is mentioned in the Qur'an, it is a way of suspending dealing with her, and waving with the hand as a sign of warning and drawing attention, not for hurting or offending.

Again, note that the so called violence against women as claimed by certain parties is an over-reaction. All claims that the verse Sura 4:34 is a licence for the man to abuse his wife are non-Muslim claims. No Islamic scholar has endorsed that.

And again, the beating must not be done with the intention to cause physical and mental hurt, but more of an expression of disapproval, as explained by the mufti I quoted above.


Imposing Liberal Western ideology on non-Western cultures, practices and beliefs -

Liberal Western ideals like freedom of expression, feminism etc have been used as benchmarks to judge societies that are alien to such practices. I have many times discussed the hypocritical idea of certain western ideals being imposed on others. For example, the idea of democracy where democratically elected Islamic govts are not recognised by the West, eg Hamas. But that's a different story.

The issue here about wife-beating is that to the West, any kind of laying of hands is considered "barbaric". That includes punishing your own child, what more your wife. As such, parents in the West can get jailed just for punishing the child with a slap.

But isn't this ridiculous idea of child abuse, with even one slap of the hand from a parent or teacher, the downfall of the moral society of the West? Isn't the lack of discipline and the defiance against law and authority among kids and teenagers a major problem in the West? Even in Singapore, which adopts this ideal in our schools is seeing its effect. We now have kids in schools who respect teachers and authority not.

In Islam, the man as head of the family is given the right to correct a wrong, be they his children or his wife. This is in direct opposition to the so called "modern" West, where that idea is seen as patriarchal and even misogynistic. But then again, who is the West to judge another culture, when it is shown to have been so hypocritical?


Man as head of house in Judeo-Christian tradition -

Actually, not just in Judeo-Christian tradition, but in many societies and cultures too. If at all, the so called "modern" West, not Islam, is the one at odds with rest of the world. Here is a past post I made in Nov 2010, showing you the tradition as practised in a typical Jewish family.

Tradition - A Look at Jewish Practice and Culture and how it holds society together
Below, is a clip of a scene from The Fiddler on the Roof, explaining how tradition keeps the Jewish lifestyle intact, in spite of the outside threats to erode the Jewish culture.

The setting was 1905. Note that the Family is the central backbone in Tradition. It's the same in all societies and culture, no?

Of course today, the liberals and feminists will squirm at the fact that it is the father that is the head of the family who decides how the family is run. This includes how marriages are arranged and approved by the dad, with little involvement from the children themselves.

Liberals and feminists gripe that family, patriarchy and tradition should be a thing of the past. Aren't we stuck to this same argument the last 100 years, as seen in this 1905 setting? What's so modern about the idea we should abolish tradition and have change?

Watch the clip here and you will know what I mean.

Oh btw, take note that Jewish women cover their heads like Catholic nuns do too! Headscarves are not just a Muslim thing, no?

Fiddler on the roof - Tradition
1:45 min - The message strongly sent out is that in a traditional Jewish family, it is the man who is the head of the house. He has the final word at home.

The concept of man as head of the family is common in many cultures for many centuries. It is only at the turn of the last century that Feminists and other liberals (including LGBTs) try to construct that this concept as patriarchal and even misogynistic - and that too, it is just an opinion from the liberal West, not from the rest. Isn't that isolated idea from the West actually the oddball in the world's society?


Summary and conclusion -

- There is a lot of ignorance, especially those drowned in the exuberance of trying to promote liberal West ideals, against Islam. In this article, we discussed how "wife-beating", which is just a method of of expression of displeasure for wife, and not to be used as a form of abuse, is criticised as misogynistic.

- In reality, no Muslim scholar sees the Sura 4:34 as an open licence given to the husband to lay his hands liberally on his wife. That idea is actually a concoction of the ignorant who are quick on the trigger to criticise Islam.

- The idea that the man is the head of the family is a concept that is also found in Judeo Christian tradition and in many other cultures around the world. If at all, it is the liberal Western idea that this concept is misogynistic, that is the whacky oddball that is out of place in the world's society.

Finally, it must be remembered all this Islamophobia, over-reacting to wife-beating being preached at Darul Arqam, is due to one factor - ignorance on the part of those who fail to understand Islam better. That includes AWARE, which is known to be anti-religion and gay friendly.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since you venture into this topic, Free Bear, strongly suggest you read up more about Islam and draw your own conclusion.

Firstly, view Islam as Islam. There is no need to draw in Judeo-Christian, Hindu, or even Anthesim into the topic as this will only obfuscate the main issue here: Islam

You quoted Yusuf Ali's translations on Sura. I will also post a few verses below from Yusuf Ali's translations from the book itself.

The key point is that the Quran has mentioned serveral times that no one can change nor SUBSTITUTE any words from the Quran (eg., Tafsir al-Tabari, Q. 6:115)
Do note that these "consultants" in your quotes are actually SUBSTITUTING words like WIFE BEATING to something softer...WITHOUT any edvidence that the ORIGINAL words SPECIFICALLY MEAN that "beat" do not mean "beat".

This equates to quoting the Quran OUT OF CONTEXT, and SUBSTITUTING the words in Quran.

Now, lets take for example that this is just a special case.
So can you tell these "consultants" to explain these phrases in Quran WITHOUT substituting "softer" words for it?

The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." (Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537): FLY DRINKING TO CURE DISEASE?

And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps (stars),
and we have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans, ...
-- Sura 67:5 STARS ARE MISSLES AGAINST DEVIL?

The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:31, Middle Meccan,
``And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should
shake with them...''

Luqman 31:10, Late Meccan, ``He has created the heavens without
supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm
mountains lest it should shake with you..''
MOUNTAINS ARE MODE TO PREVENT EARTHQUAKES?

There is a long long list of illogical recordings and blunders in the Quran, and you can find it from your quoted Yusuf Ali's translations in its orginal English, WITHOUT padding from "consultants" nor "scholars".

Barrie said...

The above comment is the perfect example of the ignorance I have been emphasizing in my main post. While many words in the Quran (as well as in the Bible, Torah and many other scriptures) are figurative, you take the literal meaning. Understandably so, because that fits perfectly into the Islamphobic agenda. Try something new.

Anonymous said...

Dr Troll, resident member of an anti-Muslim and hate site, trying to teach Barrie about Islam?

Anonymous said...

I know of a guy who claims to know a lot about the “blunders of the Quran”. You can contact him for more details here yongwah.goh@usq.edu.au

Barrie said...

Just would like to add that my point in the main post:

”In reality, no Muslim scholar sees the Sura 4:34 as an open licence given to the husband to lay his hands liberally on his wife. That idea is actually a concoction of the ignorant who are quick on the trigger to criticise Islam.”

Anon @ 7 November 2012 11:49 AM is desperately trying to concoct an idea Yusuf Ali never said, by claiming Yusuf Ali was the one quoting out of context.

Am I not correct that while no Islamic scholar has interpreted that as beating the wife as a means of physical abuse, those who try to claim that the Quran endorses wife abuse are concocting half truth and lies?

Anonymous said...

The defence of Islam getting more and more far-fetched.

First, the story was broken by Bikya Masr, a news organisation based in Egypt. Islamophobia from an Egyptian news site?

Second, claiming AWARE has a gay agenda, denigrating western views about corporal punishment and trying to say the same of the Judeo-Christian tradition shows clutching at straws.

Third, the point of the story is not what religious scholars have said. The point of the story is the alleged teachings in the marriage courses about how they gave demonstrations on wife-beating. Are you going to address that at all? At the very least, if you think their behaviour is not in line with the Quran, shouldn't you condemn people who teach such wrong practices?

Fourth, I'm not sure if the interpretation of the Quran you quoted is generally accepted, but surely the existence of such passages that are so easily open to misinterpretation, and the actual practices of some religious teachers (as alleged in this story), are contributing factors, at the very least, to why Islam is so ...'misunderstood'? Why blame everything on Islamophobia?

Barrie said...

>>First, the story was broken by Bikya Masr, a news organisation based in Egypt. Islamophobia from an Egyptian news site?
>>

Why not? Sisters in Islam is from Malaysia, and it is also pro-gay, which is against core Islamic teachings. So what if Bikya Masr is from Egypt?


>>Second, claiming AWARE has a gay agenda, denigrating western views about corporal punishment and trying to say the same of the Judeo-Christian tradition shows clutching at straws.
>>

Isn’t AWARE a gay leaning site? What corporal punishment? Again, you take interpretation of Islamophobes that try to interpret the verse as physical abuse, when no Muslim scholar takes that interpretation. Proving my point correct?


>>Third, the point of the story is not what religious scholars have said. The point of the story is the alleged teachings in the marriage courses about how they gave demonstrations on wife-beating.
>>

Ah, if that truly is the case, then exactly in what manner was it demonstrated? A chair was taken out, a hand lifted, and then??

Was it a light tap? A punch? A hit? A lightning boxer’s strike?

None was told. But you ASSUMED it was a heavy blow, no? Again, constructing a case? Isn’t that Islamophobia?


>>Are you going to address that at all? At the very least, if you think their behaviour is not in line with the Quran, shouldn't you condemn people who teach such wrong practices?
>>

How is that going to be addressed when you don’t even know what kind of “hit”? Unless you assume it is the worst kind, which of course, proves my point that Islamophobes like you are constructing a situation to hate.


>>Fourth, I'm not sure if the interpretation of the Quran you quoted is generally accepted
>>

It is not accepted by a group of non-Muslims who would like to taint Islam, like yourself. That I can say. If you say that it not generally accepted among Muslim scholars, pls back up your fallacious claim.


>> but surely the existence of such passages that are so easily open to misinterpretation
>>

Exactly! And you just tried to do that, didn’t you?


>>and the actual practices of some religious teachers (as alleged in this story),
>>

But even in the alleged story, you were not told if that was just a light tap or a heavy blow! Yet you swallowed whole, the Islamophobic story? Aren’t you trying to construct a situation that never was?


>>Why blame everything on Islamophobia?
>>

Didn’t you just answered why yourself?

I like the answers that come out right from the mouths of Islamophobes themselves. They’re so much more effective and succinct!

Yes, note that you are still trying very, very hard to make it sound Islam teaches violence when no Islamic scholar has interpreted the verse as such. Isn’t that Islamophobia on your part and not just the story teller?

Am I not correct in my main post about the point all such interpretation is from non-Muslims who have an agenda to twist words to taint Islam!?

Now you asked me why? Hellooo? You just answered it yourself, didn’t you?

Anonymous said...

“I know of a guy who claims to know a lot about the “blunders of the Quran”. You can contact him for more details here yongwah.goh@usq.edu.au”

Yongwah from USQ? I know him when he was studying for his PhD in the 1990s. He would spend 24/7 couped up in his room on his computer spamming and trolling in cyberforums. He seemed too free. Can’t believe that he’s still at it today.

Anonymous said...

He wasn't just trolling on cyber forums. He was busily surfing porn sites and then spammed people with those adult links.

Anonymous said...

What a pity. Ranting against Islamophobia in a way that causes people on the fence to see the extremist that you truly are.

Barrie said...

The fact that you equate clearing misinfo dished by Islamophobes on Islam as extremism drives my point even deeper that Islamophobia is all about ignorance.

Like I said, I like it when Islamophobes prove my point from their very own mouths. It certainly reinforces my point even stronger.

Btw, your above post was classified as spam by Google. I had to release it. Funny how even a machine is able to see a troll. You’ve been spamming other sites such that Google picked your IP address out, haven’t you?

Anonymous said...

Nope to spam.

Anonymous said...

Let's also not forget that the troll stalked women in forums and even sexually harassed a young lady at the old ypap forum. A real pervert.

Sya said...

I don't get it. Why can't the husband just show his displeasure by saying it? "Wife, I don't like how you burnt the rice."

Why is he allowed to tap his wife like she's a child, but there are no elaborations on how she is allowed to show her displeasure?

Sya said...

I don't get it. Why can't the husband just show his displeasure by saying it?

Even if he is the head of a household, is he always right? How should he handle criticism?

Why can he tap his wife like she's a child, but there are no rules on how she is "allowed" to show her displeasure?

Barrie said...

>>Why can he tap his wife like she's a child, but there are no rules on how she is "allowed" to show her displeasure?
>>

That Q is asked bcos you are trapped in the liberal feminist argument that the man and woman are equal in the family. But this is Islam and like many other cultures for thousands of years, the man is the head of the house.

Do you ask the Q why are there no rules on how the child is allowed to show displeasure towards parents?

I know that doesn't go down well with liberals, especially feminists. But there lies the "holier than thou" attitude liberals harbour against other cultures. They think they are superior and other cultures and practices are "backward".

That said, there's nothing in Islam to stop wife to tell husband that she's displeased with him. He should take that as good honest feedback.

Anonymous said...

Has anybody in this discussion ever considered that the popular translation of the word - dharban ghayra mubarrih" to mean "a light tap that leaves no mark" can be explained differently?. It was explained to me by a Muslim man that in that verse the word refers to 'jolt' or to cause someone to be stirred from ignorance.

Anonymous said...

I also find it unbelievable that Allah would give a 'blanket' instruction/injunction thus trusting that the husband is always superior in intellect and is in control of his actions/emotions without taking into consideration the husband's background. I fear then that the husband will then become the judge, the juror and the executioner...

Barrie said...

Husband is not the judge, juror and executioner. There is still the Sharia courts if he crosses the line. That authority given to him is not a blank cheque.