As unambiguously stated by Aisha
"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not strike a servant or a woman, and he never struck anything with his hand".
This statement made long after the prophet's death, by itself is enough to negate any attempt at misrepresenting any related incident from the prophet's life and cast it in a bad light. But this isnt enough to the hatemongers. The intellectual dishonesty is such that they quote and misrepresent an incident involving the same Aisha who said the prophet never hit a woman, in their bid to disparage him.
The part of the hadith in question which is misunderstood is
"He struck me on the chest which caused me pain".
The Arabic lahaza does not denote striking, rather a nudge, and neither does the complete hadith justify the malicious misinterpretation of the critics. Being of gentle, forbearing character with his wives, as attested by too many ahadith to list, and even echoed in the Quran, the prophet in that hadith is depicted as silently leaving Aisha's quarter at night so as to not wake her up and going to a cemetery to pray for the dead, then hastily returning to the conjugal bed where he encountered Aisha suspicious of him. That is when he engaged Aisha physically by pushing her chest, not with the intention of beating or causing pain but to grab her attention as he is reported to have done in other cases
"The Prophet struck my chest with his hand and he said..""I informed the Prophet that I could not sit firm on horses, so he stroke me on the chest with his hand and I noticed his finger marks on my chest. He invoked, 'O Allah! Make him firm and a guiding and rightly-guided man.." Etc.
This physical manner in engaging a person to grab his/her attention was often done before teaching the important lesson that follows. In another narration the prophet said
"The most complete of the believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best in behavior to their women".
Many ahadith are of the same import. For example the prophet used a particular expression in reference to women nature
"Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely".
According to al Albani and sheikh al Arnaout, the allusion to a rib is metaphorical, and this is obvious for several reasons. "ka dhilaa/like ribs" is used in other narrations figuratively. Even the Quran alludes to nature rather than physical origin when it says that 21:37"man has been created from hastiness". Also, had the hadith been speaking of the physical origin of women then it would have mentioned the first or a particular woman as created from a rib. The prophet here is giving a subtle and pragmatic lesson in gender relationships. Just as a rib would break if one uses force against its naturally curved shape, a woman will break, and the relation with her husband as well, should one try to forcefully change her particular nature and character so as to fit one's tastes. And just as leaving the rib undisturbed will make it retain its natural shape, complete passivity in a relationship will make the woman keep her natural character (regardless of whether that character is good or bad). If a man therefore wants to try changing some traits in a woman, so as to make her more suited to his own personal disposition, then one should neither use force, nor be disinterested and detached, rather one should always be tactful.
In 2 other weak and discarded reports, Aisha is said to have been physically corrected with a slap by her father Abubakr, contrary to the prophet's will, because of her questioning the prophet's justice, out of her spousal jealousy. In the first case she protested with a rhetorical question
"Do you not say you are the Messenger of Allah? Will you not do justice?"
Clearly here she isnt doubting Muhammad's prophethood but appealing to it in relation to her own perception of what justice should be in that particular case
"Abu Bakr heard what I said and he was vehement. He came up to me and slapped my face. The Messenger of Allah – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – said, “Take it easy, O Abu Bakr!” He said, “O Messenger of Allah, did you hear what she said?” The Messenger of Allah – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – said, “A jealous woman cannot tell the bottom of the valley from its top".
In the second case, as she asked the prophet to face Abubakr for his opinion on a conjugal issue, before letting him talk she adjured him
"O Messenger of Allah, say it right!” and Abu Bakr slapped her, saying, “Do you tell the Messenger of Allah to put it right?"
Knowing the inadmissibility of domestic violence within the prophet's household, abused Muslim women would openly report their issues to the prophet or his wives. In one case, a woman came to Aisha accusing her husband of violence. Because
"It was the habit of ladies to support each other"
Aisha reported the issue to the prophet in a very partial manner
"I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"
Aisha's statement doesnt imply that the suffering in question is related to violence from husbands. It is an exaggerated appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with Islam condoning domestic violence, especially considering the "evidence" presented
"the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her A GREEN SPOT on her skin".
The most that can be deduced is that the case brought to her attention included domestic abuse besides the sufferings which Muslim women were facing at the time. And these were many, including deprivations, losing their husbands to war, emigration. It is further important noting that the woman in question, once in the presence of her husband in front of the prophet doesn't cite domestic abuse as a reason for her divorce request. The "evidence" she initially presented to Aisha was of course anything but incriminating. She instead proceeded by revealing her true intentions, as she falsely accused her husband of being impotent. Once that charge was proven to be a lie, the husband uncovered her secret for seeking a divorce
"she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a."
At that point the woman does not deny the charge. She had clearly come to the prophet, like other women used to, knowing that he would not tolerate domestic abuse. She assumed he would unconditionally side with her against her husband if she presented herself as victim of violence.
If Muslim women truly were most abused and Islam condoned it then the last place these women would go to, to present their issues would be the prophet's household. The prophet said in connection to that and other similar incidents
"Many women have come to the family of Muhammad complaining about their husbands striking them. These men are not the best among you".
The prophet would consequently warn women against marrying Muslim men known for their violent temper, as seen from his advise to Fatima bint Qais
"As for Abu al-Jahm, he frequently beats women. Rather, you should marry Usamah".
The prophet went as far as calling a man a sinner for rejecting his repeated command to stop abusing his wife. The woman had sought refuge with the prophet, knowing his position on the issue of domestic abuse. The prophet took her word for granted, warning the man to put an end to the abuse
"O Allah, you must deal with Al-Walid, for he has sinned against me twice".
He immidiately sided with Habibah bint Sahl who sought his approval to divorce her abusive husband
"Take what she owes to you and let her go her way".
How could one believe the report according to which Ali, in front of the prophet's eyes gave
"a violent beating"
on one of Aisha's servants? The presence of that report in the sira books is no proof of anything, especially considering that none of the historians commented on its authenticity. Further, the story is part of the incident of Al-Ifk, which is detailed in the authentic narrations, including the part about Aisha's servant and Ali, and yet the beating part is absent. One of the only reported times when the prophet actually gave the benefit of the doubt to the husband in a case of domestic abuse brought before him was when
"a woman who came to God’s Messenger when he was with him and said, “My husband, Safwan b. al-Mu‘attal, beats me when I pray, makes me break my fast when I am observing it, and does not pray the dawn prayer till the sun rises.” Safwan was present, so he asked him about what she had said and he replied, “Messenger of God, as for her statement that I beat her when she prays, she recites two surahs and I have forbidden her to do so.” God’s Messenger said to him, “If it had been one surah it would be enough for people.” He continued: “As for her statement that I make her break her fast when she is observing it, she keeps on fasting (referring to fasting which is not obligatory), and I am a young man who cannot contain himself.” God’s Messenger said, “A woman may fast only with her husband’s permission".
Through another chain, the hadith continues
"As for her statement that I do not pray until the sun rises, we are a people belonging to a class, and that (our profession of supplying water) is already known about us. We do not awake until the sun rises. He said: When you awake, offer your prayer".
For a reason, the prophet felt that the woman's accusation against Safwan were suspicious, and it turned out that he was right. The woman was obviously exaggerating and inflating her points of contention with Safwan, knowing that the prophet would not tolerate domestic abuse. This is a similar case to the aforementioned one brought to Aisha.
The Quranic command is not to strike, hence the silence on the modus operandi. The purpose is to address the issue of violent men who would be inclined to strike their wives whether with their hand, a stick or chain (see article below).
And this, although the verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. Islamic judges of the classical era, based on the prophet's example and many reported sayings on husband-wife etiquette, used to frequently dissolve marriages based on domestic abuse, with the wife keeping her belongings and dowry and the husband responsible for spousal maintenance, requesting compensation and protection for the women, discouraging and admonishing husbands from comitting any type of violence against their wives.
The 2nd caliph, Umar once meted out a punishment, a beating on a man as a result of him causing trouble and being harsh to his wife
“Umar sent an arbitrator to a couple, but he returned without succeeding in reconciling them; whereupon he [‘Umar] BEAT HIM saying, “Almighty God says, ‘If they desire amendment [reconciliation], Allah will make them of one mind’ [Quran 4:35].“ So the man returned and with [good] intention[s] and gentleness toward them, he reconciled them.”
This bellies the statement attributed to Umar where, after a man intervened to prevent him beating his wife, reported from the prophet
"No man shall be asked for the reason of beating his wife".
This specific statement within the incident is deemed weak and rejected by the hadith authorities. Even if taken as it is, the statement doesnt give free rein to wife beating. It rather prevents making private household issues known publicly.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and Wife Beating"
No comments:
Post a Comment