| Author | Topic |
locust
CANADA
|
 Posted - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 9:25 PM 
Assalamu Alaykum
Brother Hashmi, I am agreed in principal with the methodology you propose in order to decipher the 'clear' message of the Quran. It is sound.
I am somewhat unclear with your analysis of the discrepancy between the prophet's established practice in his own home(ie. not hitting his wives) and the Quranic "allowance" of light beating to restore order.
Are you saying that the beating has been "allowed" and not "encouraged"? If this is the case I agree completley, however it still leaves me with the impression that this "allowance" has been made in the same sense that an "allowance" was made for slavery.
Is this completley impossible? Slavery was deeply rooted in society and as such Allah(swt) in his Infinite wisdom proscribed limitations and clear guidelines to improve the lot of the common slave, could we not say that misogyny towards women was also deeply rooted in society and as such Allah laid down provision to improve the lot of women inasmuch as it was possible in that particular context? If looked at this way, the "allowance" to "lightly" hit rebellious wives is a great improvement from the jahilliyah custom of doin what they pleased with their women.
I'm really not just arguing for the sake of it brother, and honestly I know that in view of my limited knowledge I should refrain from offering my "opinions" on Islam. But being in social work and having seen the results of homes in which physical abuse takes place I have trouble with our insistence on maintaining this practice.
An intelligent man would fear Allah and take his responsibility (and corresponding right to disciplne his wife physically) seriously and would not transgress the commmand to offer "light" admonition but on the other hand there are men who would "abuse" this right and make me hesitant to allow wife beating under any circumstances.
Anyhow, I really appreciate your willingness to continue this dialogue with me inspite of my stubborness, but I promise you that I remain open to changing my point of view if you give me adequate reason to do so.
Thank you brother.
Wasallam
Edited by: locust on Thursday, July 08, 2004 9:47 PM |
|
ummjuwayriyah
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 3:17 AM
As Salaamu alaikum,
1 – The Qur’aan enjoins good treatment of one's wife: she is to be honoured and treated kindly, even when one no longer feels love in one's heart towards her. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“and live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allaah brings through it a great deal of good”
[al-Nisa’ 4:19]
2 – The Qur’aan explains that women have rights over their husbands, just as their husbands have rights over them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise”
[al-Baqarah 2:228]
This verse indicates that the man has additional rights, commensurate with his role as protector and maintainer and his responsibility of spending (on his wife) etc.
3 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) enjoined kind treatment and honouring of one’s wife, and he described the best of people as those who are best to their wives. He said: “The best of you are those who are the best to their wives, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spoke beautiful word concerning kind treatment of one’s wife, stating that when the husband feeds his wife and puts a morsel of food in her mouth, he earns the reward of doing an act of charity. He said, “You never spend anything but you will be rewarded for it, even the morsel of food that you lift to your wife’s mouth.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6352; Muslim, 1628.
4 – And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Fear Allaah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allaah and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of Allaah. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike; if they do that then hit them but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” Narrated by Muslim, 1218.
What is meant by “they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike” is that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your houses, whether the person disliked is a man or a woman, or any of the woman’s mahrams [close relatives to whom marriage is forbidden]. The prohibition includes all of them. From the words of al-Nawawi.
The hadeeth may be understood as meaning that a man has the right to hit his wife, in a manner that is not harsh and does not cause injury if if there is a reason for that, such as her going against his wishes or disobeying him.
This is like the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“As to those women on whose part you see ill‑conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”
[al-Nisa’ 4:34]
If a woman rebels against her husband and disobeys his commands, then he should follow this method of admonishing her, forsaking her in bed and hitting her. Hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.
‘Ata’ said: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth - Translator]
The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.
And Allaah knows best. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 9:16 AM
>>Hitting with a siwaak and the like. [A siwaak is a small stick or twig used for cleaning the teeth...]
Now here is my confusion. The directive increases in harshness. First admonition, then forsaking intimate relations, and then hitting.
Beating with siwak certainly does not appear harsher than the former two.
Comments? |
|
ummjuwayriyah
USA
|
Posted - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 2:33 PM
As Salaamu alaikum,
What exactly are you looking for?
Are you trying to understand the order of disipline or the steps that the husband is permitted to take to disipline his wife?
The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her. |
|
locust
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:02 PM
sorry wrong, posted in the wrong place!
Edited by: locust on Sunday, July 11, 2004 11:10 PM |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:04 PM
>>Are you trying to understand the order of disipline or the steps that the husband is permitted to take to disipline his wife?
Just the progression of the intensity of the measures for the sake of consistency.
>>and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.
have you come across rebellious women. Infact can you cite a case of a rebellious woman, i.e., what crime must she be guilty of before being meted out the ludicrous punishment of being hit by a 'siwak'?
Quite frankly if she is an adulteress then does not one divorce anyway? |
|
locust
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:12 PM
Assalamu Alaykum
Ummjuwayriyah, thank you for your post.
I appreciate the references you gave, however I am quite familiar with what the directive to "admonish rebbellious wives lihgtly" means and am not confused in this respect. Infact your post accuratley sums up the position taken by most scholars throughout history on this directive.
Ultimatley, I don't see my main argument being addressed by anyone yet, I'll recap it.
First off let me say that what I'm arguing is of little consequence as no important scholar hasever said that a muslim man should 'beat' his wife in the same sense that "beat" is commonly understood today(harsh and physically painful).
Regardless though (and this is my argument), we find that the prophet(saws) refrained from hitting his wives, we also see that the Quran takes into account regularly the social circumstances of the time and as such (for example) an institution as morally reprehensible as slavery is not outlawed in clear terms. Does this silence mean that Allah(swt) codones slavery? of course not astaghfirullah. A careful reading of the Quran makes it clear though that believers are encouraged to manumit their slaves and to treat them well. During the prophet's(saws) time women were seen almost as slaves, in the sense that they were owned by their husbands, and as I've written in most of my posts above, the Quran improved their situation immensely.
Once again I ask, since beleivers have been encouraged to make a light admonition a last resort(during a time when a man could conceivably do far worse with his women) is it not possible that the time for physical admonition of rebellious wives (however light) is over as no one can deny that the time for slavery is over?
I'm hoping someone can address this question as this is my real point.
Jazak'allah |
|
locust
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:22 PM
Assalamu Alaykum Juaidj
" have you come across rebellious women. Infact can you cite a case of a rebellious woman, i.e., what crime must she be guilty of before being meted out the ludicrous punishment of being hit by a 'siwak'? "
This is part of what I'm getting at, I mean, it is patently clear to me that the directive to admonish wives "lightly" as a last step is to act as a limit. If this is the case, why continue applying this directive in a situationwhere it's applicability is moot.
"Quite frankly if she is an adulteress then does not one divorce anyway?"
"rebellious" in this context is not necessarily sexual. Any situation in which the authority of the husband is challenged by the wife and in turn jeapordizes the stability of the home can be termed "nuhuz(rebbelion)".
Peace |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Monday, July 12, 2004 - 2:05 AM
>>the directive to admonish wives "lightly" as a last step is to act as a limit.
My confusion lies elsewhere. If the crime is of a rebellious nature then there are three stages of punishment, which increase in harshness.
First admonition. Then the harsher breaking off intimate relations and finally the harshest.
Now punishment by siwak - literally a tooth cleaner looks quite absurd as the last stage of punishment.
But if it is actually a cane, then again we have a problem in that the directive would be barbaric.
Either way there is a problem.
And if it is a suggestion as has been argued then it does not help either given the excesses to which this suggestion has been misused in many Islamic countries.
Finally, it could be that this directive is time specific and hence in this day and age irrelevant. For admonition can most certainly be replaced by marriage counselling/psychotherapy. |
|
locust
CANADA
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 10:35 AM
Assalamu Alaykum
Junaidj, I hope all is well with you!
I don't know brother, I'm starting to feel that I've approached this topic in general from the wrong angle.
As far as your observation regarding the increasing "severity" of the steps taken to deal with nuhuz(rebellion), and the apparent incompatibility of a "light" beating as a final step, I'm afraid I don't agree.
I don't see the directive in question as one that is escalating in "severity" necessarily but rather as different steps taken...all with the aim of restoring order. In this sense the directives are increasing in "seriousness", this is meant to act as a means at the disposal of the husband to restore order in the home. So a husband is, through these various means available to him, expressing his disapproval of this rebellion with the aim of restoring peace.
Anyhow, irrespective of how muslims may have abused this directive,NO notable scholar has ever suggested that hitting the wife is to be as serious a thing as we commonly understand beating to mean today.
So, I'm not sure anymore why I'm spending my time on this topic....although it would be nice if one of the esteemed instructors on this site would answer some of my earlier questions.
I personally have resolved to never hit my wife (once I get married, insh'Allah) as I'm sure I can find other ways I can fulfill my responsibilities. I am only emboldened that I am in good company, as the most excellent of human beings(saws) never resorted to this "right".
Peace |
|
StudyingIslamUK
UNITED KINGDOM
|
 Posted - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 1:24 PM
assalamualaykum
we think that just like the matter of smackin/not children regarding salah/prayers; the purpose is to threaten them for e.g. stopping/cutting down their game sessions etc. similarly if a wife is found to be involved in a sin, threatening her like not allowing to share credit card, cutting pocket money down . restricting holiday trips/shopping etc cn b used instead of physically beating 
similarly a husband found to b involved in such cn b threatened to cut down their benefits?/ but what as they hv most authority? working women may but wat about others |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 6:33 PM
I personally dont agree with the beating injunction, for a woman is a grown up adult as opposed to a naive child. No wonder while many sane Muslims read the verse, in actual truth they claim what you have:
>>I personally have resolved to never hit my wife (once I get married, insh'Allah) as I'm sure I can find other ways I can fulfill my responsibilities.
And this goes back to my earlier point that even under severe circumstances we have counselling/psycotherapy or the like to be used as opposed to beating.
Times have changed. Women are not like Hinda who would chew the liver of a dead man. Times simply are not the same.
>>NO notable scholar has ever suggested that hitting the wife is to be as serious a thing .....
But very few scholars have either stressed the converse, that it is condemnable to hit a woman this day and age.
>>similarly if a wife is found to be involved in a sin, threatening her like not allowing to share credit card, cutting pocket money down . restricting holiday trips/shopping etc cn b used instead of physically beating
But then the Divine could have used some other word rather than 'beating'?
All I am trying to do is resolve the inconsistencies for myself.
1) The main point is that when you ask any scholar about wife beating, he will tell you that it is to be used a last resort and also implemented with siwak. This is absurd, for a woman is not a child. Also, this stance is quite paternalistic.
2) Then there are the likes of Taliban who have used canes, which is simply barbaric. Have Muslim scholars voiced vehemently against their treatment of woman.
3) Then there are Muslim feminists like Riffat Hassan and Fatima Mernissi, who claim that the word beating is infact the word confinement. This approach reeks of twisting words.
4) Then so called Muslim lesbians like Irshad Manji, who claim that with verses such as these Islam is outdated.
5) My issue is that the Divine could have used a different word in place of beating. But he did not. Given women like Hinda perhaps 'beating' worked in the tribal 7th century Arabia. But not any more.
So the alternative I offer is that this verse may be treated as time specific as we treat verses from Surah tauba on Jihad.
But I am no scholar. And obviously, there could be a better explanation.
Edited by: junaidj on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:06 PM |
|
locust
CANADA
|
Posted - Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:16 AM
Asalamau Alaykum
Dear brother Junaidj, I have to say that I think we are on the same wavelength.
I too have been concerned that many scholars have not been very outspoken regarding the responsibilities a man owes his wife , and this does seem to be the result of a patriarchal line of thought.
As my main questions have not been responded to, I will assume (until shown otherwise) that there was a definite need to "limit" physical admonishment at the time of the prophet(saws) as the men of jahilliyah were obnoxious in their treatment of women. I cannot, with good conscience though, believe that this directive is applicable today though.
As youve noted "a woman is not a naive child" to be reprimanded physically (and as I've argued elsewhere in this thread), psychology has shown without a doubt that discipline,of a child, can be acheived withou even the use of light tapping to emphasise a point.
How much more absurd to treat a woman as a child when she is your partner in the journey of life?
We're agreed brother.
"And this goes back to my earlier point that even under severe circumstances we have counselling/psycotherapy or the like to be used as opposed to beating.
Times have changed. Women are not like Hinda who would chew the liver of a dead man. Times simply are not the same."
 Hahaha, great one brother. Certainly in my personal life I've never met a homicidal maniac quite at the level of Hinda!!! Not yet anyways, Alhamdullillah!!
Anyhow, it does seem overly paternalistic to tap a woman who gets "out of line", and I too have difficulty seeing this scenario being played out in real life.
And thats the point really isn't it? To make Islam something that lives and breathes in your very life. How can I incorporate something into my life that seems so absurd? I just don't see it happening.
And I'm not so sure that I'd want a relaionship of father and child with my wife anyhow.
So yeah...basically we're agreed.
Peace brother, BTW, I've really enjoyed our diaolgue and I appreciate your contribution.
Edited by: locust on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:30 AM
Edited by: locust on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:08 AM |
|
Zeenaeem
SAUDI ARABIA
|
Posted - Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 9:51 AM
Dear All
Assalaamu Alaikum
I am a new member and this is my first post. I gone through this entire thread in one go and found it interesting, reading different views and interpretations and a host of questions raised by various members. Answers to many questions could really be found in Mr. Tariq Hashmi's elaborative write up in the beginning itself, if you chose to re-read it again.
Locust has raised a couple of questions regarding wife-beating and slavery. Though we object to both and our wisdom does not allow us to agree with such atrocities committed on women, we have to agree to the fact that both - wife beating as well as slavery - still exist and cannot be wiped out, for various practical reasons. That is where the wisdom behind the Verses of Al-Qur'aan rests, as they are applicable to all, all the time from their revelation. For 'slavery' I will write separately. Here I give below an interesting survey conducted among non-Muslims and reported by Press Trust of India (PTI). From this, you may come to know that 'wife-beating' is not a new phenomenon to be confined only with Islam, as has been assumed and accused by enemies of Islam.
There were several incidents of 'husband beating' too, if one wished to analyze with unbiased mind. I have read about a wife who eaten away her husband !! I will try to get that news item to be posted, if someone wish to read. See the report of PTI below :
Majority of women justify wife-beating!
PTI
COIMBATORE: Despite many groups raising a hue and cry over wife-beating from various quarters, a survey has indicated that in Tamil Nadu, 72 per cent of married women justified assault on their person by their husbands, for various reasons.
Analysis of National Family Welfare Survey-Two on violence against women and its association with reproductive health problems in the State indicated that the wife's negligence in the house and child care was the single biggest reason for wife beating.
The other reasons the analysis has thrown up were wife's visit outside home without husband's permission, disrespect for in-laws, lack of care in cooking food, besides not being faithful to the husband.
Majority of the husbands wanted their wives to be most responsible in house keeping and child care and therefore negligence of this responsibility led to wife-beating, the survey, analysed by A K Ravishankar and S Ramachandran of Bharathiar University, said.
The percentages approving of wife-beating were comparatively high in rural areas.
Saying that there was a clear cut negative association between standard of living index and the proportion justifying wife-beating, they said it was really surprising to observe that instead of strongly opposing it, women appeared to justify it.
The percentage in Tamil Nadu, of women being beaten from the age of 15 years was 40.4, higher when compared to National average of 21, which explained a deplorable situation of women in the State the analysts said.
The domestic violence rate was lesser than the percentage (72) who justified physical mistreatment, indicating no significant relationship between their attitude and experience of violence, they said.
The experience of domestic violence by women who have no living children indicated that childlessness could be the reason for it and the proportion experiencing domestic violence declined with improving standard of living condition of women, the analysts said.
The multidimensional analysis clearely revealed that the women in the low socio-economic level were more exposed to the probability of being beaten by their husbands, they said.
Therefore, improving the status of women in terms of certain variables like education, would help in reducing the domestic violence, analysts suggested.
Peace & Unbeaten Smiles
Zeenaeem |
|
xxbasxx
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 12:52 PM
| um wut about the right 2 beat husbands? |
|
Zeenaeem
SAUDI ARABIA
|
Posted - Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 1:21 PM
Dear xxbasxx
There are several incidents of husband beating occurring daily. Most of the time, the husband happened to be a drunkard. After getting pay, he drinks away major part of his payment, and on return to home, gets good thrash by wife.
The poor husband, out of humility, never complains to the police or to anyone. But such shows could still be seen in slums as well as so-called high society.
There are incidents, where wives have injured/killed husbands by throwing grinding stones on their heads.
You might have heard that some women have gone to the extent of cutting the private parts of men. In that process, a woman made a clean juice out of the thing she managed to cut, using a mixer and drank instantly. I do not have that report with me, but it was true. Please read the following article giving details of a wife who ate away her dear husband :
THE AUSTRALIAN
Nepalese woman cooked and ate husband
From AFP
June 02, 2004
A MOTHER of four cooked and ate parts of her husband's body after killing him and locking herself up for five days in her room in southeastern Nepal, police said Tuesday.
Police said they found the skull of Gopi Krishna Ghimere – a low-level employee of Nepal's state-run food corporation – simmering in a pressure cooker when they broke the padlock of his wife's room Sunday.
The woman, Indira Ghimere, pleaded guilty and is undergoing medical and psychiatric checks, police official Pratap Singh told the Nepali-language daily Space Time.
"The woman from Mrigauliya village in Morang district admitted she killed her 48-year-old husband, cooked his flesh and ate it," Singh said.
He said the woman killed her husband on May 25 while he was sleeping and hid with his remains inside her room, where police also found a jug of blood.
Police broke in after her three sons and daughter complained they had not seen their parents and neighbours reported foul smells from the house.
Police later searched a gas tank and found the partial remains of Ghimere, with some organs removed from his body.
AFP
Peace & Bearing Smiles
Zeenaeem |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|