The anti-Sharia Movement is getting momentum in the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other non-Muslim countries and states with the passage of time. Switzerland has banned construction of minarate in the Muslim mosques; France banned ‘Hijab’ covering of face. More than two dozen U.S. states have considered measures intended to restrict judges from consulting Shari’a law in the USA. Recently, South Dakota has moved a Bill No. HB-1253 on anti-Shari’a in its legislature and Florida has moved in its House Bill No. HB-1209. During the lead-up to Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign of 2012, he described Shari’a law as a "mortal threat" and called for its ban throughout America. It is getting coverage in print and digital, social and non-social media. The organizations and institutions involved in the Movement are public and private, religious and social. While some may be sincere in their opposition to Shari’a, others may be using it as a short-cut to name and fame. In truth, it appears hardly any opponents even know what Shari’a is? Even majority of Muslims hardly know about Shari’a beyond their five obligatory rituals, such as recitation of Faith, Prayer, Fasting, Alms-giving, and Hajj, while non-Muslims identify it with only stoning, beheading, cutting of hands for theft and robbery and likewise for other Shari’a crimes. Most of the Hudood punishments, which relate to Sharia Law, are basically everything to do with the establishment of justice, peace and security and to prevent crime and corruption in the life of the Muslims, specifically in the Muslim states and countries by way of prescribing guides of behaviors for all citizens.
The basic reasons of antipathy of anti-Shari’a movements in the non-Muslim countries are not only the ignorance of Islam and its Shari’a Law, but also the age-old bias and prejudices of Islam rooted in the wars of Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Total and unqualified submission to the will of God (Allah) is the fundamental tenet of Islam. Islamic law (Shari’a) is the expression of that will for Muslim society and therefore constitutes a system of duties incumbent on every Muslim. This will of God was provided by God in His revelations through the book, the Quran, to His Messenger, the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). This was provided to restore justice to human dealings with one another as well as to recognize the ‘claims of God’ as Creator and Lord of the Universe. Shari’a is the totality of God’s commands that regulate the life of every Muslim in all its aspects, including worship and rituals, political and legal rules, details of toilet, ways of greeting, table-manners, attendance to sick and old, and dealings with one-another—all on an equal footing. The God’s commands were deduced from the Qur’an and the Sunna of the Prophet and his companions by the jurists and theologians in the second century Hegira onward.
Hereunder, I cite the three specimens of anti-Sharia Movement and my rejoinders explaining the truth hidden in it.
I. “Top Ten Reasons why Shari’a is Bad for all Societies.” Article by James Arlandson, published inAmerican Thinker, (see in ‘americanthinker.com/archived- articles/../2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html’).
1. Islam commands offensive, aggressive and unjust Jihad. (See the author’s charges on the subject in www.americanthinker.com/archived- articles/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html.
2. Islam Orders Apostates to be killed.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non- Muslim to the critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Shari’a itself.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
7. Islam commands that a male or female thief must have a hand cut off.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
II. “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World”; A detail article by Alexander R. Alexiv, March 2011, published in http://www.hudson.org/; (search under “The Wages of Extremism”).
Major Tenets of Sharia:
· A Muslim cannot be condemned to death for the murder of an infidel.
· A Muslim man can have four wives, a woman only one husband.
· A Muslim man can marry non-Muslims, Muslim women may not.
· A woman needs four male witnesses to prove rape and could be stoned to death for adultery if she fails to find them.
· A Muslim virgin cannot marry without permission of a male guardian.
· Muslims who leave Islam automatically get the death penalty. If they are not available for killing, their marriages are annulled, and they are denied inheritance.
· Women inherit half of what a man does, and their testimony is worth half of that of a man in business transactions.
· Judges in an Islamic state must be Muslims. A non-Muslim judge can adjudicate only for infidels.
· Adoption is prohibited by Sharia.
· A man can divorce his wife instantaneously; woman must pay the husband to have the marriage dissolved, provided he agrees.
· A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife.
III. The New York Times on ‘The Anti-Sharia Movement’.
The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement: by Andrea Elliott; The New York Times, Pub: July 30, 2011.
NASHVILLE — Tennessee’s latest woes include high unemployment, continuing foreclosures and a battle over collective-bargaining rights for teachers. But when a Republican representative took the Statehouse floor during a recent hearing, he warned of a new threat to his constituents’ way of life: Islamic law.
Similar warnings are being issued across the country as Republican presidential candidates, elected officials and activists mobilize against what they describe as the menace of Islamic law in the United States.
Since last year, more than two dozen states have considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Sharia, or foreign and religious laws more generally. The statutes have been enacted in three states so far. Voters in Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment last November that bans the use of Islamic law in court.
In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah.
Among those now echoing Mr. Yerushalmi’s views are prominent Washington figures like R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., and the Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, who this month signed a pledge to reject Islamic law, likening it to “totalitarian control.”
REJOINDERS
Before analyzing the above three categories of charges leveled against SHARIA, I want clarify few things beforehand.
First, what is regarded as Islamic law (Shari’a) nowadays is essentially a body of juristic opinions (fiqh) that began to be socially constructed during the middle of the second century Hegira. The legal injunctions of the Sharia were based on the Quran and the Sunna of the Prophet and his companions and their successors. The companions and their successors were living witness of the Prophetic traditions. Their verdicts on day-to-day problems of the ummah were recorded in their sayings and deeds, which later became the collections of ahadith.
The Sharia developed side by side with the development of Muslim community throughout their conquests of foreign lands and foreign nations with their varied languages and cultural backgrounds. Virtually, the Sharia developed in a universal atmosphere of Arabs, Persians, Romans, Berbers and Mongols. This phenomenon made it lively for all climes in all ages. It is dynamic and not static as it is now considered a thing of the past. Most of the Muslim countries have now a double legal systems mainly after the fall of Muslim empires throughout the world and their countries colonized after the past two World Wars. Otherwise, the Shari’a was followed by the Muslim states and regions throughout the world from the emigration of the Prophet from Makka to Madina in 722 A.D. until 1924 A.D. when the last of the Ottoman caliphate was disbanded after the First World War.
I am investigating the truth about the charges detailed in the beginning of this paper, in the light of the Qur’an and Sunna only prevalent during the period of each episode. The scope of the paper limits me to skip the related ahadith on each topic, although Sharia is largely based on ahadith. The referenced ahadith in the charge-sheets that can be seen in their websites are based both on weak, corrupted and strong ahadith. These ahadith are mostly in reference to certain contexts which happened in the Arab tribes. They were circumstantial to solve the issues and problems of the Muslim community then arising. They cannot be taken as universal law of the Shari’a.
Why the Sharia of medieval period is so harsh and merciless? Let us keep in mind that the Prophet and his companions had to reform the most unruly and savage tribes of Arabia who practiced all kinds of social evils. The Prophet could not make the same generation an exemplary nation in his lifetime without putting them to rigorous moral and religious teachings. They were the same savage Arabs who later, during the period of Pious Caliphs took the lands of two great empires of Sassanid and Roman, conquering Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Persia, North Africa and Spain in a short span of time. Their tall tales of moral integrity, courage and bravery are spread throughout the pages of history. The harsh and hard Ahadith and Sunna of the Prophet and his companions during this period of trial and tribulations should be seen in the light of this historical background. The applications today of those Ahadith and Sharia injunctions, like cutting hands of thieves, stoning adulterous women and beating gamblers and drinkers, as are practiced in Saudi Arabia and Taliban’s Afghanistan are due to two reasons. The Shari’a stopped its positive application with the fall of political powers of Islam and reform in Shari’a remained dormant. Complications arise when the Jurists and theologians of today apply the negative side of Shari’a of medieval period in our today’s life-style.
The “Ten reasons why Shari’a is bad for all Societies” and the second list of charges against “Major Tenets of Sharia” are all based on ignorance and prejudices. The harsh punishments shown in the two list of charges are all relate to “Crime and Punishment” in Islamic Shari’a, which were applicable only to Muslims in the then welfare Islamic state, where citizens had safety of life, property and honor with all kinds of facilities for peaceful living. If Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan apply one side of the Shari’a and ignore the other civic obligations to provide justice, peace, security and subsistence to their citizens, it is their fault and not the fault of the principles of Sharia. Their faulty rules cannot be equated with the Shari’a Law.
The Hudood punishments of Shari’a are designed to maintain peace and security of life and eradicate all kinds of crimes and corruptions by implementing justice in the society.
The hue and cry in the legislatures of the USA, Europe and other non-Muslim states and countries, as shown above, are meaningless and based on prejudices only. Along with the constitutional safeguard of Freedom of Religion in the United States and Europe, if and when Shari’a Law is adjudicated in the non-Muslim countries in the cases of Muslim citizens, the beneficiary of this Law would be the incumbent states. The cases of inside terrorism by the Muslims, if adjudicated under Shari’a Law, would be more effective, fast and acceptable to all concerned.
Let us now examine the charges, detailed earlier, subject-by-subject:
The Concept of Jihad.
Events of history can only be judged in its prevailing background of the age and place. The events of Seventh Century Arabia cannot be a model for today’s Muslim world in the 21st Century. The Quran says, “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not begin hostilities; God does not like the aggressor”(2:190). The Quran is more explicit, “permission to fight is given only to those who have been oppressed”(22:39). It is true that some verses in the Quran instruct the Prophet and his followers to “slay the polytheists wherever you confront them” (9:5) and to “fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day”(9:29). It must be understood that all such verses were directed specifically at the Quraysh and their partisans in Medina and elsewhere with whom the Prophet and his companions were locked in a terrible war of survival. The Qur’anic verses of historical nature are different from universal nature. If Muslims were not given permission to fight the enemies within and without, they could be obliterated for good. Nevertheless, these verses have long been used by Muslims to justify their militancy and by non-Muslims to demonize Islam and suggest that Islam advocates fighting unbelievers until they convert. But this is not a view that either the Quran or the Prophet endorsed.
The Gender Question
Jihad and Gender in Islam are the two burning topics, the Western media and audience are obsessed with. In the second category of charges against Sharia under heading, ‘Major Tenets of Sharia’, seven out of eleven relate to Muslim women.
First we have to realize that we are critiquing in a system that is rooted in fourteen hundred years in the past and are still live and followed in basics today with little variations from Morocco to Indonesia.
One of the essential teachings of the creed of Islam, “respect for women” was enforced, and the Quran declared “Reverence the womb that bore you”(4:1). Islam secured to women, in its system, rights which they had not before possessed. It placed them on a footing of perfect equality with men in the exercise of all legal powers and functions. Islamic law provides for the care and well-being of women in all her three incarnations, as a daughter, as a wife, and as a mother. Care of and gratitude to parents is placed at a high pedestal “show gratitude to Me and to thy parents” (31:14).
According to Bible, woman was not part of God’s design for creation (Gen.2:15-23). The Quran supplemented this subsidiary formation of woman saying she was a part of ‘mankind’ created together “from a single person” (4:1). The principle of equality of man and woman is thus embedded in the Quranic view of creation. What message we get in 33:35, which puts men and women on equal footing in a dominant patriarchal society. The Quran also takes care of the vulnerability of women and protects them against undeserved slander, which has been in practice in all cultures. If a person brings a scandalous charge against a woman, he has to prove it with four witnesses, and if he fails to do so, he has to be flogged with eighty stripes and rejected for testimony forever (24:4). Marriage is a relationship of felicity, love, and goodwill (7:189). It is a relationship of ‘tranquility’, ‘love’, and ‘mercy’ (30:21). It has human, emotional basis, and a character deeper than a merely contractual arrangement. Apart from dwelling in love, the married couple fulfils God’s purpose of regeneration of humanity (4:1). The act of sex is a sober, noble endeavor, not a sin. This is a departure from Semitic traditions. In Judaism and Christianity, sex is ‘fornication’ and the birth of a child is a sinful act (Psalms 51:5). According to the Quran, God’s creative act does not end with man’s physical image, even though the image was in the likeness of God (Gen.1:27). The Quran endows him with a divine essence, saying, after God had “fashioned him in due proportion; He breathed into him something of His spirit” (32:9). The woman’s conception, therefore, is not the embodiment of sin. On the other hand it is woman’s entitlement to ‘reverence’, motherhood to mankind.
The Prophet was particularly sensitive about the deprivation of women. He did not, therefore, hesitate to promote laws of inheritance and dowry in order to protect their well-being. Men were commanded to be not only ‘protectors’ but also the ‘maintainers’ of women so that their living needs were taken care of (4:34). The Qur’an is explicit on the inheritance separately for men and women, “there is a share for men and a share for women”(4:7). This was a shocking crack in the Arab patriarchal society. The provisions for only half the son’s share to accrue to the daughter is frowned upon by the critics of Islam. It is noteworthy that the Quran enjoins upon men total responsibility of caring for the whole family. The wife is entitled to use her dowry, exclusively for herself, in addition to a share in her parent’s property. In the event of divorce, the withdrawal of any part of the dower is forbidden even if it is “a whole treasure” (4:20). If a women makes any income of her own, she is entitled to use it too, “…to men is allotted what they earn; and to women what they earn.”(4:32). In the light of the above Quranic injunctions, henceforth, the Muslim girl goes to her husband’s home fully protected with legal security net, not left on the whims of her husband and the in-laws in the new home. In Jewish practice, the girl’s father provides some money or assets to her at her marriage, called the ketubah. But under Quranic law it is the bridegroom who has to provide the dowry (mehr)[1] to his wife before conjugation. Moreover, under Islamic law, a woman, on her husband’s death is entitled, as her personal share to one-fourth of her husband’s estate, and one-eighth if there are children (4:12). This is in addition to the responsibility cast on all men to care for their parents, and very especially for the mother (31:14).
Apostasy in Islam
The Quran declares that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’(2:256), but the Shari’a has prescribed capital punishment for apostasy. The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy; Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on interpretations of certain Ahadith. The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind. Several contemporary Muslim scholars, including influential Islamic reformers have rejected this, arguing for religious freedom instead. According to Islamic law apostasy is identified by a list of actions such as reverting to another religion after accepting Islam, denying the existence of God, rejecting the prophets, mocking God or the prophets, idol worship, rejecting the sharia, or permitting behavior that is forbidden by the sharia, such as adultery. Nowhere in the Qur’anic texts, is capital punishment prescribed for the apostates. See verses 2:209; 2:217; 3:90; 4:137; 16:106-9. Sharia enjoins capital punishments for apostates on the basis of certain Ahadith, which are mostly circumstantial and contextual. Classical Islam had no distinctions between religion and the state. Hence an apostate was considered a traitor of the state, and invoked sentence of death.
The Quranic Law gives the principles of human behavior and contains the flexibility and elasticity that are applicable to different places in different ages. The Shari’a, as it developed in the medieval period, contributed to the solidarity of the ummah and the stability of social life during the period when Islam, due to its imperial expansion, was exposed to diverse cultures, ethnicities and their diverse customs and traditions. Islam had to make its society, a uniform ethical society devoid of crimes and corruptions as far as possible.
Blasphemy in Islam
Blasphemy in Islam is any irreverent behavior toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs that Muslims revere. The Quran and the Hadith do not speak about blasphemy. Jurists created the offence, and they made it part of Shari’a. The penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading. Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwa as Iran clerics’ fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing his book, Satanic Verses. Shari’a penalties and injunctions differ from place to place according customs and traditions. There are instances of a number of cases in Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia, etc. where Muslims and non-Muslims have been sentenced on various grounds of blasphemous behavior.
Some Quranic injunctions and the Prophetic traditions related to crime and punishment were mostly meant for specific time and place; their contexts were historical and not universal as Islamic jurists and theologians have made matters in today’s Shari’a. Injunctions and sentences relating blasphemous behavior have no relation and validity in the contemporary Muslim countries which are mostly signatories of Freedom of Religion and Human Rights of the United Nations. The Qur’anic verse, “ Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), itself declares the freedom in religion. How far the Shari’a injunctions relating to blasphemous behavior are in accord with the Qur’anic injunctions? We can easily see.
Most of the Muslim countries in colonial period had adopted the legal systems of colonial masters making Shari’a confined to personal family matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. The Muslim jurists’ injunctions of blasphemous behavior were practically an attempt to keep alive the norm of Islamic culture of their societies.
Adultery, Fornication and Rape
The Qur’anic term for sexual crimes is zina. It can mean adultery, fornication or rape. The Qur’anic general rule that commands Muslims not to commit zina: “Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)”(17:32). The Quran starts by giving very specific rules about punishment for zina: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes….. (24:2). “And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient, except for those who repent thereafter and reform, for indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (24:4-5). Nearly all Hadith collections include Ahadith that are central in the legal arguments about the punishment for zina:
The Quran prescribes two kinds of punishment for zina. It is dealt with in verses 4:15 and 24:2. Both the verses and ahadith on adultery, fornication or rape related to specific cases and are not universal. The Quran was revealed in a society without state institutions, such as prisons. The punishment for zina (adultery and fornication) has to be viewed in the context of a tribal society whose norms it reflects. It is not meant to be a universal injunction for all times as contemporary governments in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan and other Muslim countries have followed. The universal principle is that justice should be done and seen to be done. Their law for adultery and fornication is against the spirit of the Quran and Sunna.
Homosexuality and sodomy
The Quran does mention ‘men who have no need of women’. We are not explicitly told who these men are, but we can guess: either they have no sexual desire at all or they desire ‘man’ instead of ‘woman’. This is a fact that the Quran attach no negativity to men who do not desire women. In 24:31 the Quran speaks of “they (believing women) should not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers……or male servants free of physical needs….”. Clearly, they are the men who have no sexual desires for women, and are thus treated like close family members, can be elderly, impotent or homosexuals.
We note that the existence of non-heterosexuals is recognized and that such men existed in Medina during the time of the Prophet. They lived and moved freely amongst the women. The Prophet accepted these men as citizens of the diverse society with usual stipulation that they should not break the ethical and moral codes of society.
The sole basis of outlawing homosexuality is 4:16: “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both, if they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful”(4:16). What is condemned here is lewd public behavior. This is evident from the construction of the verse, “if they repent and amend, leave them alone”.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the Prophet punished anyone for homosexuality. Most of the so-called Ahadith on homosexuality are not authentic or totally fabricated. There is no Hadith or sayings of the Prophet in authentic collections, such as Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. Sahih Bukhari contains a couple of stories about ‘effeminate men’ (eunuchs) frequently visited the household of the Prophet and talked and joked with his wives. These stories are mentioned largely because a particular eunuch (mukhannath), as they are known, upset the Prophet. During a conversation with Umm Salama, one of the Prophet’s wives, a certain eunuch (mukhannath) described a woman of another tribe in a lurid manner. When the Prophet heard the description, he banned this mukhannath from entering his home. The Prophet was disturbed by the unethical description, the backbiting, and not by the sexual orientation of the person concerned. In the Prophet’s Medina, mukhannath who are automatically male mixed freely with women. They had a particular social role; bringing couples together and singing and dancing during weddings. The Quran portrays homosexuality as a natural disposition and the Sunna is exemplary in its toleration of sexual orientation. The imperial and aristocratic households in the Abbasid and Ottoman periods and their later successors maintained their harems (women quarters). The services of eunuchs (mukhannath) were commonly used in their harems. The demonization of homosexuality in Muslim history is based largely on fabricated traditions and prejudices harbored by most of the contemporary Muslim societies.
The story of Lott, however is not altogether irrelevant to contemporary gay culture. It is, after all, about extreme excess and out of modesty and decency in the society. The Quranic term of such a society is lewdness and hence punishable. The obsession of present-day gay culture with lavishing attention on looks, clothes, certain kinds of pop music and promiscuity is far from innocent; it echoes the excesses of Lott’s people and it is being aped blindly in Muslim societies as fashion.
Theft and Highway Robbery
The Quran prescribes the punishment for theft saying, ‘Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are men or women, as punishment for what they have done’(5:38). This has to be viewed in the context of a tribal society whose norms the Quran reflects. It is not a universal injunction for all times. The universal principle is that justice should be done and seen to be done. This leads to the conventional Muslim wisdom that the Quran advocates mandatory capital punishments. Hence we see the prevalence of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Sudan and other Muslim countries. I differ for three reasons.
First, there is the notion of compensation for the capital punishment. The guilty party can be forgiven by its victims. “O you who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude. This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty”(2:178). The element of compensation and the injunction that ‘whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty’ should not be seen as an eye for an eye.
Second, there is emphasis on repentance: whatever the crime, whatever the punishment, it does not apply merely to those ‘who repent later and make amends’(24:5). In all instances where the Quran specifies a punishment for an offence, it stresses that the door of atonement and reformation is always open. So in 5:38 ‘cut off his or her hands’ is immediately followed by ‘but if anyone repents after his wrong-doing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance’(5:39). This is consistent with the overall spirit of the Quran.
Third, the Quran sees human life as sacrosanct: ‘take not life, which God has made sacred’(6:151). ‘If anyone kills a person’ (5:32), ‘unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land, it is as if he kills all humanity, while if anyone saves a life, it is as if he saved the life of all people’. Thus we see that capital punishment is not presented in the Quran as a norm, but as the last resort in exceptional cases. The exceptional cases can be ‘spread corruption in the land’ and can be the case of terrorists who defy the norms of any descent society and operate beyond the boundaries of hudood, the parameters prescribed by God for human behavior. We cannot make people good, but we can and should strive to create conditions where there is every incentive and encouragement for people to respect each other and treat each other with dignity.
Husband allowed to hit his wife/wives.
Sura 4, titled as ‘The Women’, is one of the longer chapters in the Quran. Roughly it deals with the issues of gender relations. There are verses in this chapter that have widely been used to justify polygamy (4:3) and domestic violence (4:34). First we examine the issue of polygamy. The issue of domestic violence will follow in subsequent paras.
The revelation of 4:3 comes in the context of the treatment of orphaned and captive women in a war-like situation following the Battle of Uhud in 625. “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice”(4:3). The message in the verse is not about marrying four wives, but what to do with orphans and captive women. The syntax of the lines leaves no doubt that, far from encouraging multiple wives, it gives a reluctant permission, which is evident in the halting tone, with pause after every word, “Marry women of your choice; two or three or four”. This permission is also subject to rigorous conditions. If one has “fear” that he will not be above to “deal justly” with his wives, then he should marry “only one”. At a time when none of the social systems of the world had prescribed monogamy, the clear pronouncement of “only one” appears to be historic. The subject issue was related to the question that what could the Muslims do in such a violent tribal society where women outnumber men in 1:6 proportions.
Now let us examine the issue of domestic violence. The verse on this issue is as follows:
“As to those women on whose 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, do not seek against them means (of annoyance): for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all)”(4:34).
The right of a husband to ‘punish his wife when she breaks her code of conduct’ has rightly raised eyebrows, since this does place him in a position of authority. The verse, in fact, narrates the duties, reciprocally, of husband and wife. Men are required to ‘protect’ the women, since they are vulnerable and are supposed to be physically weak. To maintain them requires men to take the responsibility of meeting their living expenses. In return for this, the women are required to be ‘devoutly obedient’ and ‘guard’ in their husbands’ absence, whatever is worth guarding. The words ‘disloyalty’ and ‘ill-conduct’ obviously refers to adultery or extra-marital relationships, which is considered a grave sin, deserving of a severe reaction.
The second part of the verse ‘but if they return to obedience, do not seek against them (means of annoyance)’ needs no clarifications but there seems to be no such consensus amongst jurists and theologians, either earlier or now, and the literal meaning hold the ground like many other Shari’a laws. The rule is heavily in favor of men and the permission for corporeal punishment for promiscuity can be justified only with seventh century social standards of the then Arab world.
Drinking and Gambling
The Quran speaks about drinkers and gamblers in verses 2:219, 5:90-91.
The ban on consumption of alcohol is an interesting example of the Quranic method of legislation. The use of alcohol was apparently unreservedly permitted in the early years of Arab tribal society. Then offering prayers while under the influence of alcohol was prohibited. Later it is said in 2:219 that ‘….in these there is great harm and also profits for people but their harm far outweighs their profits’. Finally a total ban was proclaimed in 5:90-91 on the ground that both alcohol and gambling ‘are works of the devil….’. This shows the slow, gradual experimental legal tackling of problems as they arise. The example of punishments in Iran, Nigeria and Indonesia for drinking alcohol and gambling are the execution of the Islamic law which was formulated in a tribal society in the eighth century and after.
The Muslim societies in the earlier period of Islam had first provided the benefits and needs of life of the citizens and punished those who committed crimes in a welfare society. The Muslim countries or Muslim societies who strictly follow the Shari’a law in 20th or 21st century will have to make themselves first a welfare society on the ethical base enunciated in the Quran and Sunna, otherwise sizeable number of population will be handicapped or mutilated and they will be a major liability on the concerned state or society and increase in crime and corruption. Hence, the subject punishment of culprits is unislamic and against the norms of the Quran and Sunna.
[1] Kidwai, Shaikh M.N., “Woman under Different Social and Religious Laws” Seema Publications, Delhi, 1976, p.93
