Critics incorrectly allege that Islam commands husbands to beat their wives, often citing the Quran verse 4:34. Unfortunately, like any Muslim man who harms his wife, critics miss the keen wisdom in verse 4:34 that actively pre-empts domestic violence.
In Virginia, I provide pro bono legal support to victims of domestic and sexual violence. Virtually all of our clients are female. Every nine seconds -- nearly 10,000 victims daily -- a woman in the United States is abused. In America, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more than car accidents, muggings and rape -- combined. Would those who blame Islam for domestic violence also blame Christianity every nine seconds?
Before addressing this question, consider Dr. James Q. Wilson's perspective -- America's pre-eminent social scientist. He cites the medical fact that the part of the brain that stimulates anger and aggression is larger in men than in women. Likewise, the part of the brain that restrains anger is smaller in men than in women. Simply put, men are far more prone to violence and far less capable of self-restraint than women.
But this is not a "cop out" argument. Part of the problem is that our laws only punish men after the violence has already occurred. We implement educational and rehabilitation programs to decrease and diminish other illnesses, allowing the individual to function in society without harm to him or herself or to others. Likewise, stopping domestic violence means acting to eliminate even initial infractions.
Pre-emptive deterrence is the key. And this precisely is the wisdom behind verse 4:34 to decrease and stop violence against women. The verse in its totality describes a process of restraint, anger management and reformation.
The verse begins by defining a family unit, holding the husband accountable as the household's guardian and provider. This obligation gives him certain authority, privileges and a requirement of magnanimity -- but never the right to employ domestic violence. The verse then urges women to also act virtuously, and protect the family unit by cooperating with their husband, listening to him in all good things and to not publicize private family matters.
Next, verse 4:34 employs the process of anger management, reformation and reconciliation. This process may only be employed after a wife has initially and deliberately undermined or attempted to destroy the family, as indicated by the words, "as for those on whose part you fear disobedience." But "disobedience" does not mean any random disagreement a wife may have with her husband. Arabic lexicon provides the correct understanding as that of a wife who has deserted her husband altogether or has unjustly attempted to destroy the family. Once a wife deliberately engages in this form of behavior, then the Quran describes a process to peacefully reconcile the dispute.
The first step, anger management, obliges the husband to merely admonish his wife of his concern, essentially encouraging the parties to admit that a problem exists. This forces a man to strictly control himself in hopes that his wife will also incline to reconciliation. Should this fail, the second step is separating beds for up to four months. This act further diminishes the chances of domestic violence, as a man physically separates himself from the emotionally charged situation for an extended period of time. If the wife engaged in an action to which the husband over reacted, then his extended time apart will help him realize the foolishness of his own behavior. Likewise, if the wife indeed engaged in an improper act, then her husband's separation will encourage her to realize the unreasonableness of her behavior. Either way, this step avoids violence altogether while actively promoting reconciliation.
Employed effectively, these two steps help reconcile the vast majority of domestic disputes. Should the first two steps fail, however, the Quran allows -- never commands -- men to consider the third step, translated as "to chastise them." But to understand "chastise" as sanctioning violence ignores the lengthy process employed in the first two steps to eliminate violence, the proper meaning and scope of "chastise," and the precedent of peaceful reconciliation Prophet Muhammad himself established.
First, it is unmerited to suggest that the Quran requires such extensive lengths to avoid violence, only to ultimately permit it.
Next, Arabic lexicon demonstrates that the word translated "chastise," i.e. daraba, employs definitions like "to heal," having nothing to do with violence. While daraba may also mean, "to strike," the proper scope of "strike" is best understood through Prophet Muhammad's example. Prophet Muhammad explained that for that man incapable of controlling his anger -- the first two required restrictions notwithstanding -- any act, such as a "strike," must heal and "not so much as to leave a mark."
Elaborating on this, Prophet Muhammad explicitly admonished Muslims, "Do not beat your wives." He led by example and never struck his wives, therefore demonstrating in word and in deed that Muslim men cannot harm women for any reason.
As an alternative, Islam also encourages arbitration to actively foster reconciliation while reducing and eliminating the chances for domestic violence.
Thus, verse 4:34 describes a human nature-based process of reducing environmental triggers and curbing biological urges. This verse forces men to control their anger, remove themselves from emotionally charged situations that may lead to domestic violence, while admonishing women to also incline towards reconciliation.
As for women who fear harm from their husbands, Islam gives women an even easier path: demand their husbands stop their egregious behavior, or file for divorce. Islam was the first religion and Prophet Muhammad was the first statesman to ensure women had the right to unilaterally divorce. A Muslim man who violates his duties to protect, provide and care for his wife risks losing his wife altogether, while still being liable to provide for her financially. The Quran ensured these protections to women 1,400 years ago. Thus, Muslim men who abuse women do so in spite of the Quran, ignoring the Quran's required and lengthy pre-emptive methods to peacefully reconcile.
Finally, remember that domestic violence occurs because men let their anger rule their behavior. If the nearly 10,000 American women who are abused daily received the pre-emptive protections that verse 4:34 offers, then how many women would actually be subject to domestic violence at all?
Follow Qasim Rashid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MuslimIQ
Muslim clerics who speak Arabic since birth prove that the meaning of the verb "daraba' in the context of verse 4:34 is "to strike". Programs on Arabic language TV channels show Muslim clerics explaining how to beat wives "from whom you fear disobedience":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsyEt3y1K4 "The Prophet Muhammad said: "Don't beat her in the face, and do not maker her ugly."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do How to beat your wife
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ Islam: how to Beat Your Wife
Book "Muslim Couple" sold in Canada tells Muslim men how to beat and control their wives http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/03/23/19543371.html
Thought experiment: when was the last time you heard of a Christian cleric saying that killing anyone for any reason was every Christian's duty? When was the last time you heard a Jewish rabbi call for Jews to kill anyone? A Hindu? A Buddhist? We report here at Jihad Watch with mind-numbing frequency about Muslim clerics calling for blood and death, and no one bats an eye. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Stop the Islamophobia: hold Muslim clerics to the same standard as all other clerics!
Of course, it's been quite a while since I've heard of anyone using the Bible to justify honor killings of your wife, spouse, or other female family members.
===
The difference is that the Western world prohibits domestic violence unconditionally and persecutes it rather harshly. In contrast, the Muslim world tends to allow domestic violence, and indeed, things like jealousy and shame are mitigating factors instead of aggravating ones.
Just now, in San Francisco, an elected official is fighting for his career and political life as he stands accused of domestic violence. What did he do? He and his wife had a loud argument, and at some point, he grabbed her by the arm roughly enough to leave a bruise. He's being charged over his wife's objections, I might add.
The police often treat domestic violence calls with indifference.
The police and judges often believe the lies of the perpetrator
My abuser was ordered to do a batterer program and a substance abuse program.. the court order stated that failure to provide proof of compliance would lead to arrest..
he never did the batterer program
he never did the substance abuse program
family law states when considering matters of child custody and visitation that the judge shall review the case to ensure that the person has been rehabilitated before granting them custody.
with a restraining order in effect; my children's father duct -taped my 3 year old son's mouth shut and pinched my 5 year old son's neck leaving a mark. they told me he slapped them across the face and lifted them off the ground by their hair
i took them to the police department where they took statements from my children and took pictures
the law states that this is a REQUIRED FELONY ARREST
no arrest was made,
the police did not provide the police report to the judge at my ex-parte hearing as requested by the judge..
within days of expiration of the order he threatened to kill me and the judge
this judge granted my children's father visitation without rehabilitation
judges don't take it seriously until someone gets killed
Muslims are commanded to honor all of God's Prophets, including those of outside of the Abrahamic faiths, such as Buddha and Krishna. You may not believe in Islam, but, out of a willingness to embrace your better nature, and show tolerance and respect, the least you can do is open your mind, and listen to another point of view with graciousness. "Love thy enemy," Jesus taught. So, even if you consider Islam an enemy, follow the true teachings of love and compassion within every faith, at its core. That is what Mr. Rashid is trying to do, and that is what we should commend.
Why are you contradicting Allah?
We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? (Quran 2:106)
It actually refers to previous scriptures. This verse is talking about the fact that previous revealed scriptures, while perfect for their time, have found their commandments continuously evolving just as mankind has evolved. Ideas that were once acceptable and perfect for that particular time period, have now been either reborn into something new with the coming of Islam or remained the same.
Thus, with Moses, it was "an eye for an eye," and with Jesus, it was "Turn the other cheek," while Islam incorporates both absolute justice and forgiveness, with forgiveness being given preference.
Thus, the Quran is the final revealed word of God, which has incorporated the messages of previous scriptures while evolving to suit humanity's needs today.
It is never obsolete, and never will be, but has much to offer mankind in the present day.
See Islam's Response to Contemporary Issues: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf.
Also, see Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge, and Truth: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/
Some people are pointed out that this verse should be abrogated and rejected. The fact is, however, that it is Muslims who need to be reformed, not Islam. Most of them (including the modern day mullah) have a limited and illiterate understanding of their own faith, and Mr. Rashid is trying to correct that. For this reason, his interpretation should be welcomed. To say that any positive interpretation of a religious verse is not valid is simply a bad argument.
The Qur'an does indeed have layers of meaning, and it actually says in some verses that certain aspects of it are clear and easy to understand for the layperson, while other aspects are more complicated, and need the interpretation of learned religious scholars. This verse is one of those verses which has been twisted out of context. To look at the verse as advocating violence against women is to deny the many verses championing women's equality, condemning the infanticide of baby girls, and honoring parents, advocating respect especially for mothers. The Quran must be accepted in its entirety in order to understand it completely.
As Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the former head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, once said: "As a man of religion, and head of a spiritual community of followers who have faced a century of persecution, terror and cruelty, I most strongly condemn all acts and forms of terrorism because it is my deeply rooted belief that not only Islam but also no true religion, whatever its name, can sanction violence and the bloodshed of innocent men, women and children in the name of God.
God is love, God is peace!
Love can never beget hatred,
and peace can never lead to war."
Also interesting to note that the persecution mentioned in the quote, mostly happened at the hands of muslims...
It's an article from the Review of Religions, published by my community, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (www.alislam.org), which advocates a separation of mosque and state in today's pluralistic world. In this sense, I find the concerns raised in the first letter very important, and valid. How can one impose one interpretation of religious law on someone? It just doesn't work in a pluralistic society, where even in the same religion, there are so many interpretations, and often leads to resentment, frustration, and human rights abuses in an oppressed society, with horrible treatment of women.
As Ahmadi Muslims, we call on people of all faiths to join together, in peace, and combat thedeadly forces of darkness that wish to exploit religion for their base political ends. Let's work towards a peaceful and just society.
I don't know. I suppose we should ask Allah why he felt the need to include verses such as 9:29 into his eternal, unchangeable word to mankind.
But I will refer you to this commentary on the verse in question to find answers to your question: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=922®ion=E1&CR=.
In fact, for many of the most "controversial" verses in the Quran, this extensive five volume commentary does an excellent job of explaining the Quran's true, and yes, tolerant and peaceful, teachings.
Peace be with you.
Ahmadi Muslims, as Muslims who believe in the Messiah, will always work to represent the true, peaceful teachings of Islam, and have rejected a violent interpretation of Islam and jihad since our inception over 100 years ago. For a rejection of the terrorist ideology, please see "Murder in the Name of Allah:" http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/index.html
Our motto is "Love for All, Hatred for None" (see loveforallhatredfornone.org), and our community has no links to terrorism. Ahmadi Muslims are loyal, peaceful, and upstanding citizens in every country in which they live, and uphold the Islamic belief that "Love of one's country is a part of one's faith." People may reject us as non-Muslims, and say we don't represent our faith, but we will cling to our faith, and will always advocate a return to its true, peaceful teachings.
Please, don't fear Islam. Fear those who would hijack a great and noble religion for their base political ends.
I'm not asking this to provoke or taunt you. But, to a non-believer such as myself, it is quite incredible to witness the never-ending competing interpretations of those very arcane, obscure and archaic texts, all claiming that they hold the one true understanding. And I should stress the never-ending part of it…
This would suggest to anybody looking at it from a completely rational standpoint that there is a deep flaw in the method. And if I’m definitely glad that some folks end up seeing a peaceful message in the Koran like you do, I’m nevertheless confident that a substantial proportion of believers will keep on finding ample justifications for hatred and violence in it, and claiming that it is they who hold the one, true interpretation; just as you do. So I’m not at all reassured, and I still fear. In fact, I fear all religions for theses exact reasons. After reading the Koran, Islam just seems more consistent in suggesting hatred and violence than others; whereas Buddhism, for example, is a lot more consistent in suggesting peace and compassion. But, at the end of the day, all of them are a deeply flawed methods towards morals and social life.
Please also see these excellent articles on the separation of mosque and state:
An Islamic Perspective on Government: Separation of Mosque and State: www.muslimsunrise.com/dmddocuments/2007_iss_3.pdf
Muslims, not Islam, Need Reform: http://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/muslims-not-islam-need-reform/
Hopefully, this will lay to rest any fears that Mr. Rashid, or any member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, has any desire to impose anything (and certainly not Shariah law) on anyone. Feel free to reject this interpretation of this verse, and to go your own way, and know that our response will always be "Peace be upon you." For more information, please see our Muslims for Peace, Loyalty, and Freedom campaigns (www.muslimsforpeace.org), as well as our Muslims for Life campaign (www.muslimsforlife.org) to honor the victims of 9/11.
About the "Shariah" bogey: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (www.alislam.org), which Mr. Rashid and I belong to, advocates a complete separation of mosque and state, and interprets Islam as preferring a democratic form of government over other forms. If you feel that the interpretation of this verse is unacceptable to you, fine. Our community of Ahmadi Muslims will never try to impose any aspect of Shariah law (or anything) on anyone. "There is no compulsion in religion" as the Qur'an implicitly states, and "For me my religion, and for you your religion." For more information on this, please click on these links:
"Muslims must Support Separation of Church and State in Order to Defeat Religious Extremism:" http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/07/us_must_support_other_countrie.html
Separation of Mosque and State: http://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/Separation_of_Mosque_and_State-200906.pdf
The Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Advocating a Separation of Religion from Government in an address entitled, "Is Islam for Germany" to German dignitaries and guests: http://www.reviewofreligions.org/4179/is-islam-for-germany/.
Demystifying Shariah: http://www.alislam.org/egazette/updates/demystifying-shariah/
Yes, many mullahs and so-called religious scholars have an intolerant understanding of this verse. But simply because people have hijacked the religion to serve their own twisted ends does not mean that you blame the religion. Religion is the victim here, not the culprit. If you look at Islam's history in an unbiased way, and not through the lens of prejudice, you will see how tolerant and peaceful it truly is. Don't let the acts of so-called Muslim terrorists tarnish a whole religion. Just as Muslims will never say the Crusades, the Inquisition, or witch-burnings represent Christianity (even though they were done in God's name), please do Muslims the same courtesy.
Muslims are commanded to honor all of God's Prophets, including those of outside of the Abrahamic faiths, such as Buddha and Krishna. You may not believe in Islam, but, out of a willingness to embrace your better nature, and show tolerance and respect, the least you can do is open your mind, and listen to another point of view with graciousness. "Love thy enemy," Jesus taught. So, even if you consider Islam an enemy, follow the true teachings of love and compassion within every faith, at its core.