[Reader-list] Fwd: Dehumanising the Muslim Woman By A. Faizur Rahman (fwded by Yogi Sikand)

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Venugopalan
 
Thank you for sharing this fine article by A Faizur Rehman (AFR).
 
In the context of the dialogue you and I earlier had, there are two points:
 
1. COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF QURAN SUPPORTING ENNOBLING 'SPIRIT OF ISLAM"
 
4:34 of Surah An Nisa  (beat the women if you fear etc etc ....) is a good example of what I had called "controversial advisories" in the Quran which has to be re-interpreted with common acceptance by all Muslims (Law of Evidences will still be a problem)
 
Though AFR says  that "obviously beating the wife cannot be an option to sort out
differences" he fails to give an alternate credible interpretation. 
 
The suggested replacement "to explain by giving an example." for the word "beat" is a poor one. The advisory is of progressive severity, first admonish, then refuse a shared bed. "Explain by giving example" cannot follow in progressive severity.
 
As AFR says, most of the respected translations/commentaries use the word "beat" or equivalent. http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/4/34/
 
The best interpretation for Muslims would be to replace the sense of "beat" by "strike out". Strike such women out of your lives, Separate, Divorce.
 
2. GO BACK TO BASICS. UNDERSTAND QURAN FIRST. IGNORE HADEETH & RIVAYAAT
 
AFR presents an excellent example of "death by stoning for adultery" which finds itself mentioned in many a Hadeeth and Rivayaat and goes against the Quran which also says that no punishment should exceed the ones specified in the Quran.
 
There are instances of "death by stoning" mentioned during the lifetime of Mohammed and with his knowledge or approval or on his direction. If I were a Muslim, I would reject any such Hadeeth or Rivaayat since it comes into conflict with the 100 lashes punishment specified in 24:2 of Surah An Nur.
 
What Muslims seem not to register is that in many an instances it is asked whether the "death by stoning" during Mohammed's lifetime was prior to or after the revelation of Surah An Nur. I do not recollect any definitive answer but it has to be "prior to". Mohammed would not transgress the Quran.
 
What is shocking is that after Mohammed's death, the "death by stoning" punishment continued to be used. Ali (Mohammed's son-in -law) and fourth Khalifa is considered to be one of the finest voices on Islamic Jurisprudence. (I am a great fan of his writings). But Ali is often mentioned as being what I would call is an unabashed transgressor of the Quran by specifying the "death by stoning" punishment. 
http://smma59.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/adultery-judgements-by-maula-alias/
 
I will repeat myself:
 
What the Muslims need to do is to go back to the basics. Study the Quran and the Quran alone and understand it along the lines I had written about earlier:
 
- Self-declaratory by Allah. A generalised commentary on  Creator and the
Creations and expectations of Creator from Creations
- Advisories for Mohammed alone
- Advisories for everyone
- Advisories for specific times
- Advisories valid in perpetuity for ever after
- Commentaries of the times before Mohammed that may or may not
be advisories  in perpetuity for ever after
 
Once they agree on a common understanding they will find much in the Hadeeth and Rivaayat from the different sects that need to be discarded. They will find quite unimportant some of the difference they quarrel over. They will find a new understanding of what a true Muslim is that will not make them suspect in the eyes of everyone else.
 
Kshmendra
 

--- On Sun, 4/26/09, Venugopalan K M <kmvenuannur at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Venugopalan K M <kmvenuannur at gmail.com>
Subject: [Reader-list] Fwd: Dehumanising the Muslim Woman By A. Faizur Rahman (fwded by Yogi Sikand)
To: "sarai-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Sunday, April 26, 2009, 10:53 AM

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: yogi sikand <ysikand at yahoo.com>
To: saldwr at yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Faizur Rahman: Dehumanising the Muslim woman


Dehumanising the Muslim woman

By A. Faizur Rahman

 The passage of a law in Afghanistan asking Muslim women to
unconditionally submit to the sexual whims of their husbands once in
four days is a shocking piece of legislation that seeks to dehumanise
women reducing them to mere chattels devoid of human rights. Although
this law applies only to the Shia minority, it is outrageous that the
Afghan mullahs thought it Islamic to legislate on a private
relationship which is confined to the four walls of a bedroom. To add
insult to injury the 300 women who were bold enough to protest against
this inhuman law were pelted with stones and called “dogs” and “slaves
of the Christians.” One fails to understand why motives should be
attributed to a democratic protest. How can the moderate Muslims who
have always been part of the larger Muslim society suddenly become
agents of the West “which is out to destroy Islam?” The truth is that
it is the bigoted Talibanised Muslims who are destroying Islam through
their misinterpretations and intolerance for progressive ideas. It is
they who need to be treated for their fossilized mind-set.

 It is strange the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai, which was installed
by the US and its allies to replace the Taliban, is doing exactly what
the Taliban would have done if they were in power. If this was what
was in store for Afghanistan why were the Taliban replaced at all? In
fact, the entire region seems to be relapsing into medievalism with
Pakistan signing a deal with the terrorists of the Swat valley to
implement their version of the shariah which is symbolized by the
brutal and arbitrary public flogging of an young girl without
establishing her guilt in a proper court of law, to say nothing about
the recent refusal of a Saudi judge to annul the marriage of an eight
year old child to a forty seven year old man.

 A deeper probe into the psyche of most of the narrow-minded
radicalized jurists would reveal that their interpretations are based
on traditional tafsirs (commentaries) written by patriarchal males
representing only the experiences of men with either the total
exclusion of experiences of women, or their interpretation through the
coloured vision of men. This has resulted in women being brought under
the control of men to be exploited at will.  For instance, in
interesting incident concerning the shariah, The New York Times on
March 22, 2007 reported that a German Judge turned down citing the
Quran, a Muslim wife's request for a fast-track divorce on the ground
that her husband beat her from the beginning of their marriage. The
Judge justified her ruling by saying that the couple came from a
Moroccan cultural milieu in which it is common for husbands to beat
their wives because the Quran sanctions such physical abuse.

 The Judge was obviously quoting one of the most mistranslated verses
of the Quran (4:34) which supposedly allows wife beating. The
mistranslated word is wazribuhunna which is derived from the root
zaraba. Major commentators of the Quran including Ibn Kasir,
Pickthall, and Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, have
rendered this word as "beat them" ignoring the fact that the word
zaraba has various other shades of meaning. Out of the 50 times it
occurs in the Quran, 31 times it has been used in the meaning of "to
explain by giving an example." Only 10 times it has used to mean "to
strike" but mostly in the context of Moses "striking the rock"
or the
sea, and angels "striking the faces" of the sinners.

The verse 4:34 actually talks about the various means at the disposal
of a husband to bring about a reconciliation with his wife and
obviously beating the wife cannot be an option to sort out
differences. Thus, the translation "beat them" is clearly not
justified in this context. But unfortunately even today most Muslim
societies consider it their Islamic right to beat their wives for
disobedience. In other words, the passage of the controversial Afghan
law would allow husbands to beat their wives if they refuse sex or
step out of the house without their permission. For Islam to be
exploited in this manner is indeed shocking given the fact that the
Prophet was one of the greatest promoters of women’s rights.

 The same holds true for the punishment of stoning to death for
adultery. The primary source of Islamic law, the Quran, does not
prescribe stoning as a punishment for any crime much less adultery. It
only authorizes the Muslim state to flog those guilty of adultery or
fornication but only after the case has been proved by four eye
witnesses which is a near impossibility. Even here the flogging is not
meant to hurt the person but only to humiliate him. A report in
Kitabul Hudud of Bukhari says that when a man was brought before the
Prophet for habitual drinking he was asked to be flogged. And it was
done with a lash made out of twisted clothing which could not have
hurt him. Interestingly, when someone in the group cursed the drunken
man saying “May Allah disgrace you” he was chided by the Prophet.
Compare this to the brutality of what is being done in the name of
Islam today. It is time the ulema worldwide collaborated on a liberal
interpretation of Islam in the modern context.

(Source: The Hindustan Times, April 18, 2009)

 The author is student of comparative study of religions. He may be
reached at <faizz at rocketmail.com)



--
http://venukm.blogspot.com/



-- 
http://venukm.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>