In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
The capital punishment solely for renouncing one's religion isnt Quranic, it is a Biblical ruling outlined in Deut13 or Deut17:1-7 and stipulates that all those who are caught enticing others into, or commiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground.
A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran. Further the Biblical law of apostasy is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations.
Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, or their life circumstances, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure. It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus.
This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.
In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.
The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses: -the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.
-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).
Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"
means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence. -The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).
- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned
-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple
So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.
The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
The misquoted reports about Abu Bakr's ridda wars do not come in the context of apostasy. The people fought against were regarded as Muslims according to many other reports, although a minority had apostised. They were fought for their refusal to pay due government taxes and poor rate, and after they initially and unexpectedly attacked those that sided with Abu Bakr on the issue, and after causing bloodshed among government ranks and attempted to overthrow the first caliph. Prior to giving further details about this event, it is important noting that the Quran sanctions warfare against anyone, including Muslims, who refuse to desist from destructive practices such as riba 2:278-9. The events of the ridda war occured shortly after the prophet's death when many disheartened recent converts apostised and others attempted to reduce their community contributions. Umar is reported to have pleaded with Abubakr to be more lenient with those that refused paying their dues, which he categorically refused.
Clearly the issue was not about spiritual apostasy or else Abubakr would have acceded to Umar's request, accepting that they pay less in exchange of their adherence to the Muslim community. Abubakr sent them an official letter calling them back to Islam, those very people who were nominal Muslims, but that refused adhering to the laws of the Islamic state. He instructed his emissaries to fight the rebels after they have been informed of their obligations towards the state and have rejected
"(the duties) that are incumbent upon them and [the advantages] that accrue to them, and (the emissary) should take what is [imposed] on them and give them what they are due".
In his letter Abubakr additionaly appealed to the prophet's practice in a similar situation. When he was confronted to Muslims who rebelled against the state and refused paying their dues, unjustly taking advantage of the system which others were sacrificing their own wealth and lives to maintain
"he struck whoever turned his back to Him (God) until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly".
Such a behavior is equal to turning one's back to God, as is represented by the state religion. This isnt speaking of simply renouncing the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations.
The rebels of the ridda war lauched their assault by night while the majority of the Muslim soldiers were sent on an expedition outside Medina. Abu Bakr fought back with his people and killed those who were involved.
It is with such historical and Quranic perspective that the killing of apostates as reported in the history and hadith books should be understood, spiritual apostasy was never the sole charge warranting the death penalty, but rather political apostasy ie socio-political destabilisation and conspiracies to commit bloodshed, especially in times of war or other sort of trials that caused the early Muslims to be on high alert against those who wished to overthrown the system. In addition, some among the early Muslims' enemies pretended converting in attempts to infiltrate the community and harm it through inciting sedition and providing vital information in times of war 3:72,33:60.
All governements would punish and sometimes execute foreign spies, double agents, or traitors to an enemy with whom one is at war. These are the people covered in the saying
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
This clearly puts 2 condition for the execution of an individual in war times, leaving the religion combined with seperation from the community to join the enemy. Leaving the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations does not warrant the death penalty.
This openly declared threat would make the conspirators think twice before engaging in their insidious behavior. All scholars have understood that leaving Islam must be coupled with a will to harm it and its people, to warrant the death penalty. Ibn Taymiyah said
"Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective".
Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed. Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion
4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".
They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief
4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".
Ties with them can only be restored when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environment where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case
4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".
They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for
4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"
or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandoned all hostilities
4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".
This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishment solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical.
Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementioned Quranic passage.
However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilising factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilising factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.
To further corroborate, under Uthman's caliphate, a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers deeply resented Uthman, favoring Ali instead whom they saw as a semi divine figure more eligible to be caliph. Their over exaltation of Ali took them outside the fold of Islam, making them apostates.
Their true aim by feinting conversion was to spread political and social discord to destabilize the caliphate. They planned on capturing and killing Uthman should he refuse stepping down, and Uthman was eventually murdered. Ali eventually arrested them, exiled some of them and executed others. The fact some were exiled shows that although they were all considered apostates, they did not all qualify for the death penalty. The executions were not motivated by choice of creed, which isnt an endorsed practice by the Quran, but rather for the capital offense of fasad fil ard, which per the Quran warrants the death penalty.
Although the brief and most authentic reports do not clearly say how this was done, some say that they were first burned then thrown into a ditch while others say they were first beheaded then had their lifeless bodies burnt. In both possible cases, Ali had done something which the prophet forbade;
- the first potential misdeed was execution by fire. It is reported
"When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them".
In another report
"We were with the Prophet and we passed by a colony of ants which had been burned, and the Prophet became angry and said, ‘It is not fitting for any man to punish with the punishment of Allah.”
- the second potential misdeed was mutilation of lifeless bodies. It is reported
"The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”
The traditions explain that this instruction is rooted in a Quranic verse
16:126"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient".
This verse is said to have been revealed after the prophet had seen the violent manner in which his uncle Hamza's dead body had been ripped open and then threatened
"Never yet have i felt more anger than now i feel; and when next time God gives me victory over Quraysh, i will mutilate thirty of their dead".
This emotional, on the spot declaration was never fulfilled, and the prophet in addition forbade mutilation as shown above, in obedience to the Quranic directive. Even in warfare, killing must be swift, without recourse to inefficient weapons that cause unnecessary suffering
"The Prophet forbade the throwing of stones (with the thumb and the index or middle finger), and said "It neither hunts a game nor kills (or hurts) an enemy, but it gouges out an eye or breaks a tooth".
When ibn Abbas learned of what Ali had done (either burning or mutilating), he publicly rebuked him by appealing to the prophetic sunna mentioned above, which embarrassed Ali, hence his first reaction
"Wayh Ibn Abbas!".
Ali either knew about the prophet's commands but let his emotions overcome him in the execution of the right course, or had forgotten them. So he admitted his error and praised ibn Abbas for speaking the truth
"When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly ibn Abbas said!"
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishement or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishement for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentence if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137.
As reported by ibn Abbas
"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."
Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter.
This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are
3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".
Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent
4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly".
It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because
2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity".
Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.
Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:
"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"
When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.
Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained
"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
The Quran does therefore mention the death penalty for certain transgressions. The question then arises as to why would it omit doing likewise in the context of adultery, which is spoken of in greater length than murder and fasad fil ard?
There are 2 ways to reconcile the ahadith of stoning in the times of the prophet and the caliphs, with the Quran. It is highly possible that the prophet imposed it prior to the revelation of sura nur, as some among the companions wondered
"Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know".
As no other case of fornication requiring punishment was brought to the prophet until the prophet died, the caliphs afterwards kept practicing stoning based on ijtihad. The cases of stoning in the prophet's lifetime involved married persons and thus the caliphs restricted the words in sura nur to non-married fornicators, who would then be lashed.
Another possibility is that the cases of zina brought to the prophet, and whose details are not completely known, were judged as crimes of widespread corruption/fasad fil ard. The same applies to those cases brought to the caliphs.
The goal of punishments in Islam is to avoid spreading sins and protecting the society as a whole. For example after mentioning the law of retaliation in case of murder, the Quran says that such law is meant to "give life", ie to securize society because it is a powerful deterrent and another means of remaining God-conscious (taqwa) 2:178-9.
Zina in Islam is among the worst sins, due to its vicious ramifications, especially when made public as in the case spoken of in sura 24, hence the 100 lashes. The severity of the punishment for the sin is at the level of its seriousness, and given that severity, a false accusation or an accusation not supported by 4 truthful eyewitnesses results in 80 lashes for the accuser. The woman's testimony in that case has the same value as her accuser's. Both are made to solemnly swear, several times calling God to witness of their truthfulness and ultimately calling for God's curse on oneself in case of lie.
The Bible in contrast gives no benefit of the doubt to the accused wife, who is immediately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.
In the Quran the accuser who cannot bring forth the evidence required will be considered untrustworthy in court 24:4,33:58. Exception is made for the one who sincerely repents, ie publicly withdraws his false accusation, and mends his ways 24:5. Repentance by the false witness however will not exempt him from physical punishment, which is the victim's legal right and which in addition discourages false testimonies as well as mere circumstantial evidence. The Quran clearly gives the benefit of the doubt to the one on the receiving end of an accusation. The aim is to put a stop to false accusations, slander and gossip. This mechanism makes sure that similar repercussions are returned upon the false accuser, physically and in his/her reputation. When a society allows its members to freely slander one another with no or very little preemptive measures, it potentially causes its own disintegration starting from the nucleus of the family. And none is safe from harm, from the regular citizen to the most respected authority. The Quran, to illustrate, has crystallized an incident involving one of the prophet's wives, falsely slandered to such an extent that it brought turmoil within the prophet's household for a full month, interrupting the normal course of affairs at the level of the state.
Of course, in case one's accusation is true despite the lack of evidence, one is free to divorce the partner, but as basic common sense requires, one is not free to accuse another publicly without strong evidence.
As can be seen the Quran in matters of chastity goes to great extents to protect the integrity of the righteous members of the community and the spread of sexual misbehaviour; first, in the case of real, proven cases, by providing a strong deterrent, ie the 100 lashes (or half in special cases). Second, in the case of calumnies, by providing a mechanism through which the potential accuser can hardly succeed in his/her scheme, risking bigger repercussions on the accuser than the accused. As a linguistic observation, it is worthwhile noting the Quran's eloquent choice of words as it speaks of slander with yarmuna, picturing one being pelted and injured, it omits the accusation altogether. The burden of proof demanded by the Quran in cases of adultery is set at a nearly impossible threshold and as is clarified in the sharia, based on the prophetic guidance, the burden upon Muslim judges in cases of zina is not to seek conviction, but getting the individual to withdraw their confession, since practically speaking, due to the high standard of the testimony required, only confession leads one to be convicted. The Judge then encourages the accused to repent and live righteously, meaning What Jesus did in the NT. When a person came to the prophet confessing his adultery, he was repeatedly ignored so as to to repent and mend his ways
"A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet turned his face away from him till the man bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet said to him, "Are you mad?" He said "No." He said, "Are you married?" He said, "Yes." Then the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death, and he was stoned to death at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but he was caught and was stoned till he died. The Prophet spoke well of him and offered his funeral prayer".
Prior to delivering the sentence, the prophet tried to mitigate the self conviction so as to find him way out
"Probably you have only kissed (the lady), or winked, or looked at her?" He said, "No, O Allah's Messenger!" The Prophet said, using no euphemism, "Did you have sexual intercourse with her?" The narrator added: At that, (i.e. after his confession) the Prophet ordered that he be stoned (to death)".
The noble prophet is here trying to make him retract his statement so that his judgement is deferred to the hereafter
"and whoever commits something of such sins and Allah screens him, it is up to Allah whether to excuse or punish him".
In a similar case the prophet kept postponing the verdict of an adulteress for 3 years
"There the Ghamidi woman came and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed zina (adultery), purify me’ but he turned her away. The next day she said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, why are you turning me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned Ma’iz away. By Allah, I am pregnant.’ He said: ‘Then no (not now), go away until you give birth.’ When she gave birth, she brought the child to him wrapped in a cloth, and said: ‘Here he is, I have given birth.’ He said: ‘Go away and breastfeed him until he is weaned.’ When she had weaned him, she brought the boy to him, with a piece of bread in his hand and said: ‘Here, O Prophet of Allah, I have weaned him, and he is eating food.’ He handed the boy over to one of the Muslim men, then he ordered that a pit be dug for her, up to her chest and he ordered the people to stoned her".
This was the way of the prophet, he prioritized repentance and reform instead of retribution
"While I was with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the legal punishment on me'.' The Prophet did not ask him what he had done. Then the time for the prayer became due and the man offered prayer along with the Prophet , and when the Prophet had finished his prayer, the man again got up and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the punishment on me according to Allah's Laws." The Prophet said, "Haven't you prayed with us?' He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Allah has forgiven your sin." or said, "....your legally punishable sin".
Because four people would have to be eyewitnesses to the adultrous/fornication act, then how could four people possibly see the act unless they were either commiting their lewdness with the intention of being seen by others (pornography, orgies, etc.) or so headless that they were not concerned with whether or not someone sees them. Neither of these two things occur except in societies that have become extremely corrupt in regards to sexual morality. It is to be noted however, that the act of fornication, like all sins, remains unlawful even if hidden from the public
6:120"And abandon outward sin and the inward one; verily those who commit sin soon shall be recompensed with what they used to commit".
As a side note, zina/sex outside the legal bonds, is included as a fahisha but not all fahisha are zina. Fahisha is a broader term that includes anything that is abominable, morally reprehensible, in words or deeds. In 4:15-16 we read of what is to be done in cases of fahisha in general. A woman convicted of fahisha through the testimony of 4 witnesses must be restrained. The Arabic does not entail confinement or imprisonment. She must by all means be prevented from continuing down her course
"until death takes them or Allah makes a path for them".
The "path" being, as said in the following verse, forgiveness and freedom in case of sincere repentance and reform. This is in contrast to the prophet-king David's alleged perpetual and unconditional imprisonment of his unfaithful concubines 2Sam20:3. Should the woman not show any signs of reform and insists in her will to misbehave even during the period of restrainement, then she is to undergo an unspecified physical punishment. That particular point is to be determined according to the judge's discretion, depending on the crime. For example if the fahisha is adultery/zina then the type of punishment is specified in sura 24. In all cases, that punishment is to be interrupted as soon as repentance and a clear will to mend her ways are expressed. Should the punishment not deter her or awaken her conscience, then she is to remain in a life of confinement and occasional physical punishment until she decides to stop, repent and mend her ways. The man who is convicted and his crime testified by 4 witnesses must immediately undergo physical punishment, in contrast to women who are allowed a time of reflexion prior, to be interrupted if sincere repentance and will to reform are expressed.
Among all misdeeds included in "fahisha", only adultery requires public punishment. Adultery, when it is committed in such a way that 4 witnesses are able to testify to it, is an evil with far reaching damaging effects within the society. The guilty is made to face the most pious elements of the community during his punishment. The Quran describes these public witnesses as
"a part of those who have believed".
This symbolically shows the guilty that he or her act is one that threatens all uprightness, goodness in a community. It is interesting to not here the Quran's stress on the righteousness of the witnesses, those who are the least prone to such transgressions, which bellies the idea that the public nature of the punishment is meant as a deterrent to other potential sinners witnessing the culprit being punished. Rather, the idea of undergoing a severe physical punishment coupled with the humiliation of being exposed to the known pious members of the community is the deterrent. The eyewitnesses to the punishment also serve as a lever to control both the judge and the executer. No abusive punishment can this way be inflicted.
The 4 witnesses testimony is speaking of cases of consensual, non-marital sex. Rape is an aggression which isnt subject to the 4 witnesses rule. A woman is fully within her rights to go to the police and expect them to look for evidence such as DNA, finger prints, and other evidence to catch her rapists. Even the scholars that wrongly treat rape as fornication, have moved beyond the 4 witnesses requirements and have accepted these other factors as valid evidences. It is the verse 5:33 which applies to such a case, regardless of whether the aggressor has his way with the victim
"Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Messenger of Allah. When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them".
The Bible speaks of rape cases, and their consequences. For example if a virgin pledged to another man is raped within city gates, but fails shouting out for help, then both are to be pelted to death. If the aggression occurs out in the field, where nobody would be able to hear her cries regardless, then she is cleared of "tacit consent" and only the rapist is executed Deut22:23-27. As to the case of a single girl, not pledged to any man, then the harsh punishment for the rapist is to pay a sum to the girl's father, marry the girl and never divorce her v27-28! The words in that verse denote coercion by the man, who is now free to keep raping his legitimate wife for the rest of her life. In short, although the Bible clearly mentions rape cases, it fails to prescribe a punishment for the rapist of a single woman who is not pledged to another man.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Per the Quran, the punishment for adultery and fornication is 100 lashes for both men and women who are considered equally guilty 24:2-3. This shows that contrary to popular belief, stoning to death is a Biblical command, not a Quranic one, just as honor killing is found again in the Bible Gen34:1,31 not the Quran. The punishment for adultery in the Quran is preceded by an admonishment to the reader
"a sura We have revealed and made obligatory and in which we have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful".
It is a solemn warning against any attempt at widening or re-defining its injunctions. This refutes the traditional interpretation that the adulters must be stoned to death solely for this specific transgression. According to certain accounts, Aisha was accused of adultery. Those involved in passing the rumours were not just hypocrites, but Muslims like Hassan bin Thabit, meaning it 'qualified' as acceptable in hadith methodology as far as isnad is concerned. The Quran stated, that instead of this news was passed from tongue to tongue, the Muslims should have declared it a fabrication from the very outset. The principle is just because something is mentioned in 'numbers', doesn't mean 'valid'. The content of the report is a huge factor in determining whether something is acceptable or not and the notion that because something is narrated by a group of people does not make it any stronger. In fact, sometimes scholars would say the numericity of the report indicates its falsehood. Islamic legislation, as will be shown below, provides guarantees which make it hard for injustice the like of which Aisha was accused of, to take place. It makes it almost impossible for punishment to be inflicted on the basis of suspicion or mistaken identity. Another thing to note is that Islam is a complete code of living, promoting a lifestyle that prevents transgression, such as with the various dresscodes and directives for gender interactions. That is why punishment becomes justified upon individuals that abandon this system in order to deliberately submerge themselves in filth.
Per the Quran, physical punishment is followed by social alienation of those that are proven guilty of adultery, and that do not decisively repent and mend their ways. Their future marriages may only be between similar sexual offenders, like themselves. In the process of delivering the prescribed punishment, no leniency is permitted. As a general rule in all offences, when the crime or offence is proved prior to the guilty repenting and mending his/her way, decisiveness and firmness of rule must be observed, and false sentiments, which harm the system of society, must be put away.
As stated in 4:25, the physical punishment for adultery is to be halved when it involves certain women, raised in particular difficult social conditions that may have affected their deed. If the punishment for adultery was death by stoning, then the very idea of halving the punishment of a woman would be absurd. Stoning to death cannot be halved. This verse also establishes that the social context of one caught should be taken into account, at least as far as the Quran is concerned.
The only time the Quran allows death to a crime (without specifiying the execution method) as an extreme measure, among other severe measures, is murder 2:178 and spreading corruption in the land 5:33. And even in such cases, as well as others like theft where violent punishment is prescribed 5:38-40, physical punishement or death are only used against criminals who insist on transgression before the government is able to seize them. This speaks of criminals who actually have to be subdued by force so as to safeguard society. This is corroborated in the Arabic language where sariq (masc) and sariqa (fem) are adjectives and denote thoroughness and completeness in the characteristics of the word they qualify.
An important thing to keep in mind is that this punishement is one that is prescribed within a society where the just Islamic system is implemented as a whole, where its members earn their living fairly and have the entire right to enjoy it freely and securely, where a portion of their wealth is used to meet the needs of the less fortunate, and where such crime is totally unjustified. That is why when the Muslim state was stricken by famine under the second caliphate, that the government could not guarantee the needs of all of its citizen, Umar suspended the enforcement of the punishment for theft. When a camel belonging to a man of the tribe of Muzaynah was stolen by 2 men, Umar ordered their hands to be cut off. But when he learned that their master kept them hungry, he punished their master instead, imposing on him a fine equivalent to the price of two camels. But when the Islamic law is implemented to its fullest and that should a person shouldnt have to resort to theft to answer his basic needs, then it means the crime was meant at increasing one's wealth and status at the expense of others. The thief in that case is one that deems legitimate aqcuisition of wealth and status to difficult, so he seeks it through easier but illegitimate means. The Quran then counters that perverse mindframe by making it even harder for the one proven guilty to seek wealth in a legitimate manner, permanently reducing him, both in his appearance and abilities.
The Quran does therefore mention the death penalty for certain transgressions. The question then arises as to why would it omit doing likewise in the context of adultery, which is spoken of in greater length than murder and fasad fil ard?
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Mosaic Law made no prohibition on male premarital or extramarital sexual activity so long as the women involved were not the property of another Jew. A Jewish male could acquire as many wives as he could afford, and also avail himself of the services of concubines, female war captives of any age regardless of them being married or not Deut21:10-17,Num31:17-18.
This was the case with the most eminent of their religious figures, including Abrahama, Moses, David or the wise king Solomon who were all polygamists, down to the regular members of society, including the priestly clan of the Levites 1Sam1:1-2.
Jacob counted 2 living sisters among his wives, which is against Torah law hence the various rabbinic explanations to the problem of having the father of the Jewish nation violating a future prohibition. Torah sets no limits to the number of wives Ex21:10,Deut21:15 although it vaguely warns Israelite rulers (not common people) against having "too many" wives Deut17:17.
Some Jewish comentators have argued, based on rabbinical discussions in the Talmud, that the maximum number of wives in all cases shouldnt exceed 18. Polygamy is at the foundation of the Jewish nation. It even was and is still seen as a good deed, the best fulfillement of the eternally binding command to
"be fruitful and multiply",
so much so that it can hasten the messianic age. It was practiced throughout the Talmudic period, with the legislation saying that a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them) without any hint to it being an immoral or abnormal practice. It was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it.
We find only certain regulations with respect to it but that were not practiced in reality as seen with David and Solomon's cases whose prophethood and kingship are never questionned despite their "transgressions".
It was not until the 10th century and the rabbinic ban upon it specifically on the Ashkenazic fringe, that made the issue controversial. If it wasnt a widespread practice, there would be no need to issue such a forceful amendment. Jews needed to accomodate for the Christian host nations that forbade the practice, fearing further isolation and persecutions from a people that already resented them. Contrary to their other host nations, namely the Muslims, Christian tradition isnt a continuation of Jewish tradition but of Greek and Roman pagan traditions, society and morality. Ancient Greeks, including the likes of Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great philosophers saw homosexuality, which they practiced and lauded, as the highest symbol of manhood. Women were inconvenient breeders, not ideal partners. Although Christianity somewhat discouraged homosexuality, it adopted this Greek attitude towards women and normal relations between men and women, adding the whole negative, evil spin to it.
Christians try interpreting the polygamy verses as if it is talking of marriage after divorce or death of a wife which is absurd since it says such marriage should not lead one to diminish any of the wife's conjugal rights, ie the first wife's of which the preceding verse clearly speaks of. Jesus does not oppose polygamy and even uses it in his parable to make his point about readiness for the kingdom Matt25. This was the perfect occasion for him to oppose it or criticize it, but doesnt at all. He features it, meaning giving it tacit approval.
From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th century, arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.
The Quran clearly alludes to the fact that as per the norms of human nature, the real benefits and advantages of the institution of family manifest themselves in a monogamous family. And despite fully endorsing, and not limiting polygamy neither quantitatively nor contextualy, the HB too speaks of the preference for a man to be united with a single wife Gen2:24.
As a side issue, one might ask why the regulation doesnt apply to women as well (polyandry). Aside from the basic issues of uncertain descendancy, a woman becomes undisposed to satisfy the most basic physical or sexual needs of her multiple husbands. IT is the case during her menstrual period or while pregnant. Also, from a strict biological viewpoint, a woman can only carry and conceive one child at a time and from one man only, for nine months before she can conceive another. A man on the other hand can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Polyandry opposes these very elementary socio-biological issues. That is why it is practiced by very few societies that seek to limit population growth, with a purely materialistic outlook. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguaup andrding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights
4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."
The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentionning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the prefered way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman. However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless. Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties.
Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires.
There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims. Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.
From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire.
Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.
Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.
The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article
"..marry from THE women...".
Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8. The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the chidlren of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to
"act equitably towards orphans".
The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionnaly, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help. The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.
Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of
4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".
Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse "marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four". The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.
In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because
"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".
A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people. Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase
"Ma Taba Lakum".
TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother.
Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted.
The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman. All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue
"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them", and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".
It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to
"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?
The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:
- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatement and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans
- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to
"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".
This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence. The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it. What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships. Verses such as 30:21 and others
"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".
Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.
In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife.
Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran. As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman.
This will be shown a little later.
This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all
2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".
Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishement. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.
"those on whose part you fear nushuz"
KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them. Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes. This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others.
This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage. One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz
"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".
Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few
"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".
If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physicaly. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.
Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point. However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.
First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationaly and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction. It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps. In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immidiately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationaly by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact
"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".
These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.
At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurous attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.
So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute.
This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman.
But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her. So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says
4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words
"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then
"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".
4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused
"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".
Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife
"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)".
In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery
"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".
A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force. Secondly, it is a deterrant to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him.
The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife.
None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment. This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so.
The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating. It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.
This 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. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective.
In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.
The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined.
The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants
"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".
In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said
"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".
This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.
4:19"..Nor should ye treat them with harshness..on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.."
30:21"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect"
