|
RAPE AND RELIGION
Study in the Understanding of Authority and the
Abuse of Power in Muslim Marriages (Presented at the Women’s Conference of the 2nd International Islamic Unity Conference in Washington DC 8 August 1998, Omni Shoreham Hotel) "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."
(Q. 30 : 21). In
many ways marriage, as an institution, represents a microcosm of what
is happening in the broader social and cultural lives of Muslim society.
20th century Islam has been a chequered one – one which has not only known
its isolated moments of glory but also moments of extreme tension and
animosity, and, at times, even perversity. The challenges, demands, and
tasks of the contemporary world that confront us are immense and varied.
The factors which precipitated these challenges need to be looked at.
In the opinion of scholars as diverse in their approaches as Seyyed Hossein
Nasr (1993 : 118) and Akbar S. Ahmad (1988 : 185) the impact of colonialism,
stemming from the days of the renaissance, cannot be ignored or even underestimated.
Nasr locates the awakening of Muslims to the realities of European power
and domination to Napolean Bonaparte’s capture of Egypt in 1798 (1993
:118). This awakening was a rude and confused one. Instead of it being
accompanied by a sober and critical consciousness of those factors (such
as complacency and political corruption, for example) which led to our
decay or decline, it spawned internecine conflict rarely known at that
scale in the history of Islam. Besides, while conflict within the Muslim
world did occur before, they nevertheless occurred within a context where
Muslims enjoyed – as world leaders – the necessary confidence to absorb
the potentially disruptive influences inherent in any conflict. With the
emergent new colonial order, however, and their confidence in tatters
after being deemed unfit to participate in that order even within the
perimeters of their own habitations, the prognosis seemed bad. By the
turn of the 20th century three broad – and mutually hostile – streams
of Islam had emerged. There was the neo-Kharijite movement of takfir in
the garb of Wahhabism and its antagonistic bedfellow the rigorist Tabligh
movement. When
the full impact of this crystallization made its mark, men suffered no
conscience in parading themselves as inherently, or even divinely, superior.
The result is the shocking state of Muslim women in many Muslim societies
today. They are abused, physically and emotionally, in the name of a supposedly
divine conception of privileged authority. And none suffers more than
the wives at the hands of despotic husbands. It is this condition which
has led a prominent Human Rights author to observe that "In many many
Islamic states, paternalism remains strong and causes cultural resistance
to economic and social rights which aim at ensuring equality between men
and women including equal access to education, equal pay for equal work,
and above all equality in inheritance laws which severely affect the right
to property. The maintenance of Shariah law, in conflict with international
human rights law, constitutes one of the major systemic challenges to
universal human rights in our time" (Asbjorn Eide 1995: 21). While Eide
(like many secular intellectuals) may be excused for their ignorance of
Shariah law vis-à-vis women, their observations about Muslim women in
contemporary Muslim society is fairly accurate. It remains however – and
despite the observations and criticisms of others – the sacred duty of
Muslims themselves to re-excavate and unveil the truth about the actual
status of women in Islam. They are often told that their decreed misfortune is a result of their laxity in executing the tenets of the Shariah. The question I have to ask is simple : How much more perversion are we as the ummah of Allah and His Prophet Muhammad (SAW) expected to tolerate? We might as well expect the Bosnians, Palestinians, Chechnyans and others amongst the oppressed sectors of the Muslim world to accept their conditions with equally fatalistic notions of Sabr. It is not only women’s rights that suffer under this rubble of contradictions but also other basic tenets of Islam. Are we expected to forget the Prophetic directive that "he who sees an abomination must change it with his hands, and if he cannot then he has to oppose it with his tongue, and if he cannot do even that then he has to reject it in his heart". The Qada and Qadr of Allah and Sabr have now become the handmaidens of those who wish to perpetuate instruments of oppression that can eminently be changed by our "hands" and "tongues". But then Allahu Ta’ala will not change the condition of a people until they change themselves. And it behoves us not to forget that Allah does not lie. If
it is averred at this stage that Muslim male attitudes are the products
of blighting social circumstances and are therefore not to be held responsible
for their condition then my response is simple. Unlike other man-made
systems, we possess the immutable example of our holy Prophet to which
we can perennially turn in our moments of need. There can be no excuse
for bad behaviour in Islam unless we choose to turn our backs on the Prophet.
It was in the light of these God-given rights that Imam al-Ghazali, for example, asserted the right of a woman to unconditionally separate from an abusive husband – whether the abuse is physical or psychological. In this case the services of a third party – a "thiqa" or trustworthy person as Ghazali calls him or her – may be enlisted to monitor the behaviour of the husband. The final decision with regard to reconciliation however remains with the wife (Shirbini Vol 3 : 260). Before we wax to idealistic about the past we have to remind ourselves that there are many moments in our history which evidence the fact that women, and women as wives in particular, were not always perceived through the same enlightened and liberating Prophetic vision of Muhammad (SAW). However the role of men as husbands were seen with far greater clarity than now. Their roles as leaders of the family were seen in the light of an agent holding an "office". The role of the agent would be deemed incommensurate with the demands of the "office" if he failed to fulfill its duties, responsibilities, and conditions. A classic example of discipline with regard to offences against the "office" is provided by the decision of Syedna ‘Umar (RA) to allow the utterance of three tallaaqs in a single articulation to actually fall as three tallaaqs. This was contrary to its consideration as one tallaq during the time of the Prophet (SAW) and the rule of Syedna Abu Bakr (RA). His reasoning behind that was clear. Men had started to abuse matters such as manner of instituting divorces – issues which others before them had regarded with the necessary consideration due to all matters of seriousness and importance. While
there is a storm of a debate raging around Syedna Umar’s decision I tend
to agree with Sana’ani that his decision was a product of his ijtihad,
or creative exercise of the intellect, in order to discipline an uncalled
for degree of male frivolity (Sana’ani 1998, vol.3, pp. 328-331). But
today roles are misunderstood: The most problematic Quranic text for many women is the following where Allah states : " As for those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct admonish them first, then refuse to share their beds, and then (as a final measure) beat them lightly. But if they heed your call then do not treat them unjustly" (Q. 4:34). At the outset it would do us well to remind ourselves that the Quran is the last document in which we can expect to stumble across apologetics of any kind. In its diversity of expression it represents the very spirit of Divine freedom. It is in this spirit that the Quran addresses in the most pragmatic of ways the physical, spiritual, intellectual, emotional, psychological, and even biological natures of humankind. The verse however cannot be used to support narrow chauvinistic designs or to underpin notions of privileged masculine authority. Firstly, the verse assumes, simultaneously, complete disloyalty and disgraceful conduct on the part of the woman and total innocence on the part of the man. After all a man can also be "Nashiz" (Q. 4 : 128). For this reason the first step is to admonish her so that he could, through this step, determine whether there is a sound reason for her behaviour or whether she is prepared to reform herself. It becomes him in both cases to withdraw his admonition and act with respect towards her (Husni 1347AH : vol2, p.42). Secondly, the symbolic "beating" is not allowed to result in injury to the person in any way. According to Ibn Abbas (RA) the beating is not permitted with anything greater than a toothbrush. If the beating does result in injury to her person then she would have the right to sue him in a court of law despite the fact that she might have initially behaved like a scoundrel. He, in this case, would obviously be considered the bigger scoundrel. Thirdly, according to Abu Zahrah, there is a school of thought which holds that in the case of a Nashiz husband the lady would be entitled to take him to court and get the court to mete out exactly the same punishment against him according to the steps depicted in the above verse (‘Abd al’Ati 1977 : 159). Fourthly, The preferred position, despite the Quranic verse, is not to beat even though the "beating" amounts to little more than a symbolic measure. It is narrated that "Ata ibn Abi Rabah said " A husband should not beat his wife even after he has commanded or prohibited her from doing something and she refuses to heed him. Let him rather express his anger at her refusal for the Prophet (SAW) said ‘The best of you are those who do not resort to beating’ (Bayhaqi)" (Sabuni 1990 : Vol.1, 447). Fifthly – and in keeping with our obligations to perpetually having to strive towards realizing the spirit of M’aruf (goodness) and Ihsaan (excellence) in our lives – it would do us well to remember Syeditina ‘Aisha’s statement that the Prophet "never lifted his hand to anything or anyone except when he fought in the way of Allah". Despite our pain and even our horror at the condition of some of our Muslim women, we need not follow the route of the Saadawis of today. Maimuna Quddus in her review of Dr Saadawi’s book Two Women in One observes "Anyone who has read the journals of the so-called women’s liberation movement in England, for which Dr Saadawi often writes, will be taken aback by the descriptions of matters once considered sacred, in a style more appropriate to graffiti on a lavatory wall…(these feminists)… wish to destroy the family, religion and society with their calls for free sex, lesbianism, Marxism and whichever other fashionable lunacies they fancy" (Ahmad 1988 : 194). Islam requires adab and respect in whatever we do. While there are areas of weakness in our ummah which demand a degree of firmness in approach, we also have to remember that our convictions must be accompanied by dignity.
© Speak Out Terms of use |