Social Question

zensky's avatar

Women under Sharia law - in the U.S.A and elsewhere - is it a good idea?

Asked by zensky (13280 points ) September 14th, 2011

There is much debate about a mosque near ground zero, allowing Sharia law under “freedom of speech and religion” and other such ideas in the greatest of democracies. Sharia law should be closely looked at first, say, with regards to women:

The Quran is the source of all personal status laws in Islamic countries. Therefore, the rules of religious jurisprudence concerning the position and treatment of women are also based on the Quran. In order to fully understand the position of women in Islam, one must first examine the Quranic rules concerning them. Our dilemma in today’s article has to do with the Quranic command for husbands to beat their wives.

A. Man’s Supreme Authority
The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women…” (Q 4.34). The Quran justifies giving this authority to the man for the following reasons:

First, preference is given to him by the nature of his physical ability: “God hath preferred some of them over others…” (Q 4.34).
Second, preference is given to him by reason of his financial ability: “and in that they expend of their wealth…” (Q 4.34).

Apparently this higher position of man does not change even if “a woman has enough money to support herself without needing him to spend money on her, or even if she has so much money that she can spend it on him.” This preference is because a man has authority over a woman according to the Quran, the ultimate source of Sharia Law, regardless of his or her economic situation.

The leading authorities of Islam state that this ruling of the Quran is an everlasting one as reported by al-Aqqad:

“It precedes the development of civilizations and general legislations and remains past them.”
B. Wife’s Relationship to Husband
In Islam, the wife is a slave to her husband. The Islamic traditions stress that a woman should obey her husband’s commands. The story is told of a man who ordered his wife not to leave the house while he was traveling. During his absence, her father became ill, so she sent to the prophet of Islam asking for permission to go to her father. The response she received was: “Obey your husband.” Her father died, so she then requested permission to go see her father’s body before burial. Again the response was: “Obey your husband.” When her father was buried, the prophet sent her a message saying, “Allah [god] has forgiven her father because of her obedience to her husband.” In other words, once married, the woman’s complete emotional and intellectual abilities belong to her husband.

In addition to absolute obedience, a woman should revere her husband because Islam teaches that, “If a woman knew the right of a husband, she would not sit at his lunch and supper time until he finishes.” One time, a woman came to the prophet of Islam to ask about her obligations to her husband. He said, “If he had pus from his hair part to his foot [from head to toe] and you licked him, you would not have shown him enough gratitude.”

Obedience and reverence towards her husband are two of the wife’s duties. These duties form an element of worship for her. As the prophet of Islam once said, “If a woman prays her five prayers, fasts the month of fasting, keeps her chastity, and obeys her husband, she will enter the paradise of her Lord.” In addition, Allah will not accept the prayer of a woman if her husband is angry with her.

C. Husband’s Right to Punish His Wife
The Quran gives the husband the right to punish his wife if she goes outside the parameters that he draws for her. It provides men with instructions: “But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them…” (Q 4.34).

In fact, in reading the verse above one will notice that these instructions were given to the husband concerning a wife whom he ONLY fears disloyalty, not a wife that actually committed a disloyal act. These instructions include the following step-by-step process:

1. Instructing
At the beginning of marriage, a husband reminds his wife about the rights that are given to him by Sharia Law. He can say to her, “Fear Allah! I have rights due to me from you. Repent from what you are doing. Know that obedience to me is one of your obligations.” If the wife refuses to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband, then he should remind her of his rights over her body.

2. Sexual Abandonment
The Arabic word used in the verse to describe abandonment (hajr) on the part of the husband can carry multiple meanings:

Desertion
If a wife remains “disobedient,” her husband should ignore her. This means he abstains from sexual intercourse with her as part of this phase of punishment.

Forced Sexual Intercourse (“tightening the bindings”)
While the word hajr is interpreted to mean “to refuse to share their beds,” the word hajr has several meanings. One of these meanings indicates the hajr of the camel when the owner binds the animal with a hijar, or rope. This disturbing interpretation means that the term used in Q 4.34 (“refuse to share their beds”) can actually mean to bind the wife and force her to have sexual intercourse.

This meaning is the adopted view of al-Tabari, a renowned classical Islamic commentator. Other scholars, who also support this interpretation, state “it means to tie them up and force them to have [sexual] intercourse.”

The Quranic principle of a man’s right to a woman’s body is not open for discussion. Regardless of her psychological or physical state, she has to obey the man’s command to lie in bed and have sexual relations with him. After all, the prophet of Islam repeatedly made statements advocating this view:

“If a man calls his woman to his bed, and she does not come, and then he goes to bed angry at her, the angels will curse her until the morning.”
3. Beating
If the previous methods, including instruction and verbal abuse, fail to correct a wife’s behavior, then a husband is given the right to beat his wife. Even though verse Q 4.34 does not specify the mode or limit of the beating, it is believed that the prophet of Islam put a condition on the beating, classifying it as “not excessive.” As a result, when interpreting the phrase “not excessive beating,” scholars offer the following guidelines:

Avoid hitting the wife’s face.

Do not break any of the wife’s bones.

Use nonfatal implements or physical force:
Such as the use of al-siwak (a twig of the Salvadora persica tree), or shoe laces, etc.

and the use of hand, etc. [hitting, slapping, punching the neck and chest, etc.]
The wife may receive a beating for every behavior that incites the anger of her husband or for every act that her husband does not like. Current Islamic literature supports the legitimacy of beating and its benefit for “upbringing.”

For example, the Egyptian scholar Muhammad Mitwalli al-Sha’rawi (AD 1911–1998), who was considered among the top Muslim thinkers in the twentieth century, records his position:

Beating is not a sign of hatred. It could be a sign of love. As long as it is not excessive, it would only cause a small amount of pain. A person might resort to lightly beating the loved one due to desiring what is in the person’s [best] interests and due to caring about the person. A woman, by her very nature, understands that, coming from her husband. She knows that his anger at her and his punishing her…will soon pass away and with its passing, its causes will pass. Therefore, they remain in their relationship as if nothing happened.
Conclusion
Ironically, Islamic literature claims that Islam as a religion has improved the position of women and is the only religious doctrine that honors women. History shows that Islam did accomplish some limited advancement in the position of women during the seventh century in certain aspects such as, limiting the number of wives to four in comparison to the practices during that era in the Arabian Peninsula. Conversely, many of the changes implemented by Islam were not positive. The Quran permits men to beat their wives, making domestic abuse a divinely permissible act rather than just an individual behavior.

It is worthy to note that in various ancient societies and throughout human history, women have lived under the oppression of social injustice.

However, our dilemma, when it comes to the position of women in Islam, stems from the fact that Islam is seen as the final religion and source of law by its followers. Hence, the position of women is fixed, and rulings, such as the beating of a wife, must remain in place as specified by the Quran.

Though in modern society a woman may work and share in the financial burdens of life, she will still be deprived of equality because the Quran commands it so.

Overall, the Quranic rules regarding the treatment of women can still be used today as tools of oppression in the hand of the Muslim man. Any effort she exerts other than that is of no value.”

For more on the treatment of women in the Quran, readers are encouraged to obtain a copy of the book: The Quran Dilemma.

Al Fadi is a former Wahhabi Muslim, originally from Saudi Arabia. He is a co-author and editor of the scholarly book entitled The Qu’ran Dilemma. He blogs at
http://thequrandilemma.com/blog.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

Blackberry's avatar

This is a good question.

Even though we have freedom of religion, there are still state constitutions that may see domestic abuse as, I don’t know…...detrimental! If this were the case, that polygymist would have got off free for screwing those little girls because it’s a part of his “religion”. I dislike sharia law, everywhere, but that doesn’t mean they can’t practice it if they would like, but that shit’s not going to fly in America (fuck yeah!).

I will also follow and read the answers of others.

tom_g's avatar

I’m all for religious freedom – as long as the practices do not violate other rights that we have in this country. Islam has some pretty f*cked-up ideas about women, that could easily translate into beating, etc (as you described). You should not be able to hide behind religious freedom in this case.

zensky's avatar

I only quoted a Muslim authority.

JLeslie's avatar

@zensky Watchya talkin’ about? The law of the land trumps religious law. The Sharia thing can only be taken so far, just like any other religion in the US. The extremists in any religion still wind up in trouble if they are being abusive, pedophiles, kidnappers, murderers, etc.

TexasDude's avatar

I don’t like the idea of religious law having any authority in the US. Period.

whitenoise's avatar

Quoting the Quran to proof that it can be used for bigotry is rather fruitless. The same can be done with the bible.

The notion that there can be no interpretation of Quran is not true for all Islamic faiths.

That difference is actually the basis for a lot of friction in the Muslim world.

But to answer your question… It’s not a good idea. Not for women and not for men either.

Religion is not the right base for law.

dappled_leaves's avatar

I don’t understand why anyone in the US feels the need to legislate against Sharia law. Those parts of the law that are already contradicted by the constitution, etc. are already invalid – they have no authority over the law of the land, as @JLeslie says above.

If a Muslim family chooses to follow Sharia law, meaning that they don’t report violations of their own rights due to Sharia, then what can US law do about it anyway?

This reminds me of Ainsley Hayes’ argument in The West Wing against the ERA… I’m covered.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Sharia law is never a good idea. It’s abusive.

jerv's avatar

First off, there will be no Mosque at Ground Zero

Second, as pointed out above, we have laws here that trump Sharia.

Third, there are different types of Sharia law.

A whole lot of fear and hatred based on not understanding something and blowing things out of proportion.

Blackberry's avatar

@dappled_leaves Regarding people taking action against it, I think this is because many people don’t have full knowledge of the extent and reach of the laws, including me. All they see is something pervasive and think “Oh no, we have to stop it”, instead of “Huh? That wouldn’t happen, anyway.”

zensky's avatar

Has anyone bothered to read the details?

Blackberry's avatar

@zensky I read most of it…lol.

Edit: Ok, I read the rest of it, and it’s still oppresive and the excuses for it aren’t very solid.

JLeslie's avatar

@Blackberry The action is the right wing getting votes. Unrelated but related, did you see the recent Republican debate. Bachmann getting all those applause for pointing out Perry made it mandatory for girls to get the HPV vaccine. Children get almost 30 vaccines in America, unless a parents specifically refuses, this is just another one, it is not special. But half the right wing has no idea, or have selective memories, even though their kids are all vaccinated multiple times. They don’t even realize the hospital gave their brand new infant a hep B vaccine in hospital. This whole making Sharia law illegal in the US is the same thing. scare the shit out of the public, and appeal to the Christian base and their fears of sex, Muslims, pick one. In other words I agree with you. Reacting to fear.

JLeslie's avatar

@zensky I read it. I don’t think it is a good idea. It won’t fly in America, because it does not comply with our laws. Sure it might happen in secrecy or within communities until it might be found out.

SpatzieLover's avatar

In the US, the women will be covered by our laws first and foremost.

Sharia Law: They can follow it/obey it if they wish, as here in the US it is a choice.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@zensky regarding details

Your question is about whether Sharia is a good idea…. I would answer no, unequivocally. However, your details talk about “allowing” Sharia… how can it possibly be “allowed”, if the kinds of abuse that you list are already illegal? I think that is what some of us are responding to.

What is it that you would like for us to find in the details that we appear to be ignoring?

bkcunningham's avatar

American courst have and are considering allowing Sharia Law to override American laws and courts. It is offensive to me and poses a real threat to our civil society.

jerv's avatar

@bkcunningham Proof?

The closest I have seen is a highly publicized and politicized case where a judge signed off on a settlement that the Plaintiff and Defendant (both Muslim) reached using Sharia Law that did not violate and secular laws. A little PR spin on the judge’s verdict and the next thing you know, we have Sharia Law threatening to overturn everything America holds dear.

So, is there something from a reputable source that supports your argument, or are you just playing the same Islamophobia game that Tea Partiers and to a lesser extent Republicans have been playing for the last decade?

jerv's avatar

1) Some states in the US consider a wedding ring to be “implied consent” and consider raping your wife to be a lesser charge. Hell, about thirty years ago, spousal rape wasn’t even a crime in the US!
Furthermore, the Appellate court reversed that judge’s decision. I also note that it wasn’t mentioned what religion the judge was, but it is clear (from other stories and cases) that Christian law can trump secular law just as easily, and has actually done so on many occasions.

Point not made.

2) I started reading through that, and from what I read, it is akin to declaring all Catholics as pedophiles because of what some priests got caught doing and covered up. While there was enough truth to it to not totally disregard, I also saw enough factual errors to need a large grain of salt.

You are correct that the Tea Party hasn’t been around for a decade, but the Republican Party has been around for over 150 years. However, I think it safe to say that many of the Republicans that support the spread of Islamophobia went to the Tea Party; that seems to be where all of those who thought that the GOP wasn’t Conservative enough went.

bkcunningham's avatar

That’s fine, @jerv. Just go ahead and discredit a report that is over 600 pages in less than 25 minutes after I posted the link. You just keep reading and citing your Cracked sources. lol

jerv's avatar

@bkcunningham Page count does not equate to accuracy. I merely chose that link as a bullet-point summary since I felt a concise answer was preferable to smoke and mirrors. I have no desire to spend weeks citing all of the knowledge I have that lead me to the conclusions I have reached, except to say that, unlike many people on the internet, I reached those conclusions after reviewing the facts, not before.

mattbrowne's avatar

In the United States and Germany and other modern countries laws are made by people for the people, always subject to change. These countries are keen to enact laws that do not violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore the answer to your question is a loud and clear: NO.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther