Clash of civilizations

[Guest]

I receivd this in my email

<span style='color:red'>How does God want my husband to beat me??.</span>

To: <Unitedminorities@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <CaribbeanHindus@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [unitedminorities] How does God want my husband to beat me??.
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:45:40 -0500


In an open correspondence (copies to others) I responded as follows
(23/10/03):

".....You advocate that Muslim women should read the Quran translated into
their mother tongues, and not in the original Arabic. But wasn't the Word
of God revealed only in Arabic, so how is a Muslim woman - or anyone else -
to know that the translation reports God's Word authentically?

Assume I am a Muslim woman and my mother tongue is English. Here are six
translations of the Koran 4.34 that is the basic verse in regard to us:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God
has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make
from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during
the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those
for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds
apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not
occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of
the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior
to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good
women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded
them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send
them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further
action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the
Koran, Quran, 4:34)

3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to
excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support
of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which
Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them
and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek
not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's
version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has
preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have
expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding
the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious
admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey
you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great."
(Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them
to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women
are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as
to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them
alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not
seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of
the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

6. "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 whom part you 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). (Ali's version of the Koran,
Quran, 4:34< /FONT>)
I understand the sixth translator interpolated the bracketed words. You
will see that there are significant variations in the six versions. Now, as
a disobedient wife, not only can my husband deprive me of sexual relations
(with him, and therefore totally, since I'm told - I don't know Arabic -
only men are authorised by God to have sex outside marriage) but the degree
of pain/humiliation God authorises my husband to inflict on me is naturally
of considerably import to me: there is a major difference between beating
(lightly?) and scourging. Does God want my husband to tap me on the cheek,
give me a tight slap, buffet me, or whip me, or any or all according to his
mood? Of course, I don't suppose it matters to me as a woman (Muslim or
not) that God does not give females any comparable right over their errant
males. And while my husband& nbsp;can deny me sex, I must always be
availabe to him (2.223).
You refer to oppression by Muslim men, and Muslim women claiming their
God-granted rights. Do I presume correctly that here we must distinguish
between sub-categories of women (Muslim/infidel/slave/captive - e.g., 23.6,
70.30) since not only has God apparently granted preferential rights to all
Muslim men over women as a category, but the rights appear to vary amongst
the sub-categories.
In the context of your impassioned plea for enabling "Muslim women to climb
out of the black hole of ignorance, inequality, and indignity", and your
very valid critique that historically almost all interpretation of God's
Word has been by men, I am not quoting from the Hadith but only from the
Quran (because only the latter is actually God's Word; the former are
interpretations mainly by males and, as you note, "it is safe to say that
they can't be relied upon to produce interpretations that are favourable to
women's rights"). Again, I don't suppose it matters to me as a woman
(Muslim or not) that God, the Archangel Gabriel, and The Prophet are also
all male - but, perhaps, as is suggested from your essay, these three are
really pre-Islamic ("the first person to accept Islam was Khadija") and we
may define them as incapable of gender bias. < /P>
You report Khadija was "an independent and wealthy businesswoman". Clearly,
pre-Islamic women had civic and commercial rights in addition to the
freedom/right to choose their husbands, even much younger men and from
amongst their employees. In the context of the "struggle for the rights to
Muslim women" of which you write, please do clarify whether Khadija, after
accepting Islam, retained her civic/commercial rights, or did she become
subordinate in these and all other respects to her former employee? We know
that God granted Muslim men polygamous rights - but did God grant women
comparable rights to polyandry and divorce?
From the feminist perspective, the only Islamic law should be the Quran
itself. As you suggest, all else is interpretation, and women have as much
a right to interpret as men, including interpretation of the Quran itself.
I'm not clear why you lay so much stress on the translated Quran. Instead,
for Muslim women to understand God's Word correctly, I believe it is
imperative that they all learn to read the Quran in Arabic. Or
alternatively, that authorised versions by women scholars be brought
out....."
In reply, Gandhi (now writing as Majid) clarified (24/10/03):
".....The Quran is written in classical Arabic, and even native Arabic
speakers are unable to understand classical Arabic easily. So that's one
reason for my suggestion. Secondly, there is a tradition among muslims in
the sub-continent to make their children learn to read the Quran in Arabic,
without understanding a word of it. You'll come across many many women whose
only education consists of reading and /or memorizing the arabic script of
the Quran. Which is why I think, it would be better for such women to read
it in their own language, provided they are literate in that language....
As far as interpretation goes, even when scholars have read the Quran in
Arabic, they have come up with differring interpretaions. There is no
guarantee that reading it in Arabic would give somebody an interpretation
which is unanimous across history and across cultures. As you yourself cite
from the verses about women, in which men are supposed to be the protectors
and maintainers of women, there can be several interpretations of it, even
when interpreted by those who know Arabic.
The verses you have quoted are the subject of active discourse among muslim
women scholars of the Quran....They propose that the Quran can't be
interpreted in isolation from the socio-cultural and historical context in
which it was revealed.

Men were (or can be ) a degree above women because of their financial
superiority over women, and can claim to be protectors or maintainers of
women if the woman is not economically independant. If a woman is
economically independant, no man has a right to be her maintainer or
protector. This is a contextual interpretation of those verses by some
contemporary women scholars.

AS far as I know, Khadija was able to maintain her business and her
independance after marriage. Islam grants women the rights to retian their
property after marriage, and there is no need for the wife to hand over her
property or other income to her husband. Or to even change her surname.
However, this is a far cry from what happens in reality today......"

But my very specific question about how I'm to be beaten hadn't been
answered. So I wrote again (24/10/03):

".....As far as I understand, the Quran is a defining and a definitive
text - it is THE and only identifying text for Muslims...Morever, the Quran
literally represents the Word of God. And God's Word was revealed in
(classical) Arabic. To a true Muslim, adherence to God's Will as revealed
through His Word is NECESSARY. Okay, given the revelation was in classical
Arabic, it needs authorised interpreters to translate it AUTHENTICALLY, so
that the true Muslim knows s/he is conforming to God's Will.

To interpret contextually, which is clearly what you favour, is to go beyond
and outside the defining/definitive text. For example, you interpret 4.34
only in terms of financial superiority. But isn't this sociocentric? Why
must superiority be linked to earning capacity? Why not to learning? So
that a learned wife can be considered superior to her husband even as he
provides for her financially? A plain reading of 4.34 (I use the Pickthall
translation) has God DEFINING men as superior to women. That women earn or
have their own property does not - at least in 4.34 - change their
hierarchical inferiority in relation to men. It is as the Ali Brothers said
of Mahatma Gandhi, that even the worst Muslim is definitively superior to
the Mahatma.

Context can also be disputed. In a letter in The Pioneer, Sept 5, 2003, Mr
Badrul Islam of Aligarh wrote that "before Islam’s advent, women in Saudi
Arabia were treated worse than animals. They were buried alive, and the
birth of a girl in any family was thought of as a curse. Islam gave to women
status and honour equal to men domestically and socially". I've heard this
version of pre-Islamic history from a leading Indian (woman) feminist too.
Indeed, it seems to be the popularly accepted version. Yet, surely Khadija's
example that you gave was not a unique case. And she was socially and
financially superior to the man she married. So, in acquiring equality, she
actually lost status!

Whom are we to believe?

And so who is to approve an interpretation as authentic? So far, generally
speaking, in the Islamic world such interpretation has been by mullahs and
through fatwas. There was a recent news item that there are now mullahnis
(do I have the words right??) in Hyderabad who have been deemed competent
(note, by males!!) to issue fatwas but (if I recall correctly) only in
matters pertaining strictly to women. However, at least that is a
beginning. Frankly, in regard to determining God's Word for ourselves
across the world, I don't see any alternative to authorised versions in the
different languages - though, as we know, every translation takes away from
the original (especi ally crucial in this case, because it is the original
that is God's Word) and, as we know from the history of the Bible or, from
the example of the six versions of 4.34 that I quoted, meanings do change
across versions.

I think the essence of the point I'm trying to make is in my question that
you did not answer. A "good" woman is an "obedient" woman - this has
nothing to do with my earning capacity, but is as God says it. As a
disobedient wife, must I be tapped on my cheek, or flayed with a whip? If
you say wives who are not obedient should not suffer corporal punishment
because times have changed, I respectfully submit to you that you are
committing blasphemy." [emphasis added]

And Majid replied (29/10/03):

"According to Muslims, the Quran is the definitive text for them. Agreed.
However, I don't see a problem in interpreting it in the light of prevailing
contemporary social and clutural conditions.
As an example, Islam does not outright abolish the institution of slavery.
What are we to make of that? it does place great emphasis on freeing slaves,
and provides several methods and opprotunites for doing so. Islam also
allows men to have sexual relationships with their slave women. Since the
institution of slavery does not exist in our culture, it follows that, the
passages pertaining to it, can't be applied in our present time.
I think that's the approach I would take with the question of men being the
maintaners/protectors of women. If the socio-cultural context for such
superiority can be abolished, then that precept can't be applied to
present-day gender relations. Which is why my great emphasis on the
educational and economic empowerment of muslim women.

And if the first step towards this empowerment can come from a thorough
knowledge of their religious book, the Quran, well, let's use it as an
empowerment tool. It's a tool, and if used with creativity, like all tools,
the fruits of this endeavor may offer some happy and unexpected
consequences.

My reference to economic reasons for men's perceived superiority over women
was simply an assertion of the fact that so often, it is due to their
superior financial assets that men are able to exercise their power over
women, and even over other men.

The Ali brothers may have said that illogical thing about Gandhi, but no
enlightened muslim or other human being can possibly endorse such a
statement. I would again urge that we (esp women) need to pay more
attention to the ethical and egalitarian voice of Islam, where it is clear
that the most righteous person (man or woman) is the closest to God. And not
one who is muslim only through birth or conversion.

As far as the status of women in pre-islamic Arabia, I'm not an expert in
that area. My limited knowledge tells me that it wasn't an all out bleak
scenario, which is what most male Muslim scholars would have you believe.
There were aspects of women's lives that afforded them more independance
then. Some tribes allowed the practice of polyandry, and women were also
renowned as poets and ran their own businesses. Did Islam lower that status?
it might be appropriate to say that it refashioned it. It did allow women
more rights in many areas. But it restricted others, for instance, it
abolished polyandry. Then again, I'm not an expert in this area, and my
concern is more with the plight of women in our present times .

Adherence to social roles is stressed in Islam. So wives are expected to
perform their duties, but so are husbands. My reading tells me that each
has to adhere to their roles, in order to maintain the family, familial
harmony and social order. The gender heirarchy that you mention in spousal
relationships is something that the male ulema have reinforced, to their own
advantage and ofcourse, to maintain the status quo. And unless a substantial
number of new women (re)interpreters of the Quran free themsleves from the
patriarchal mindset, and take a woman-centered approach to Islam, I don't
see much change taking place in gender relations in muslim societies."

Fair enough, but note my unanswered question - how am I to be beaten by my
husband? So I wrote once more (3/11/03):

"The basic point, as you so very rightly indicate, is whether the Quran is
to be taken literally or contextually. My submission is that, given that it
is the Word of God, an interpretation can be contextual only when there is
an ambiguity in the Word. When the Word is unambiguous, there is no scope
for interpretation. Such is the case with the (at any rate, sexual and role)
submissiveness mandated by 4.34 and 2.223. Interpreting differently from
the plain text would be to question the Word of God, and that is blasphemy
punishable (if I am not mistaken) by death. How else, Nighat ji, am I to
interpret your repeatedly avoiding answering a very specific question I've
requested you more than once to answer ??

A useful analogy in regard to literalism vs contextualism can be drawn from
the historical development of Christianity. I shall be happy to place it
before you for your comments but, Nighat ji, you must forgive me for
suggesting that a rational discussion to be continued fruitfully needs to
face issues - and answer questions - boldly and honestly !"

And that was that!!

Till today Majid/ has not explained how a good Muslim husband must obey
God's commandment to beat a disobedient wife.

My position is very straightforward:

1. The Holy Koran is God's Word revealed to His Only Prophet.
2. To question God's Word is blasphemy; to deny it is apostasy,
punishable with death.
3. Through Koran 4.34, God DEFINES women as subordinate to men and
ORDAINS that a disobedient wife be beaten. There is NO ambiguity about this
whatever, and the husband - or other interpreter of Koran 4.34 - commits
blasphemy by questioning this, or apostasy by denying it.
4. The only ambiguity is apparently in how the disobedient wife must be
beaten. It is here that interpretation can be contextual.
Perhaps my reasoning is erroneous.

How does God want my husband to beat me??.