Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | 23 Safar 1431  
Domestic violence
The Saudi bitch slap
A Saudi Arabian judge declared this weekend that husbands can slap their wives if they spend too much money. Asra Nomani tells us why she is "thrilled" by his outrageous remarks (and his getting busted for them) and why they are a helpful wakeup call for the Muslim world.
The blogs are lighting up with ridicule after a Saudi judge declared this past weekend that husbands can slap their wives on the face if they blow their husband’s money. One headline declared: “Saudi judge says it’s OK to bitch slap your wife.” Said a blogger: “Just more of those Muslim family values in action, folks!” Another headline laid out the news: “Saudi Sharia Judge: Slap the Bitch...”

For my part, I’m thrilled the judge said what he did - and got busted for it.

But first, let’s start with the facts. The incident occurred at, of all places, a conference on domestic violence, sanctioned by the Saudi royal family. During the conference, Sheik Hamad bin Mohammed Al-Razine, a judge in the Saudi city of Jeddah, tried to explain an increase in spousal abuse by suggesting spendthrift women were partly to blame, a Saudi newspaper reports.

“If a person gives SR1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends SR900 [$240] to purchase an abaya [a full black gown worn mostly with a face veil or head covering] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” he said, according to an Arab News account. Women in the audience jeered loudly—but because Saudi judges are also Islamic clerics, their comments are influential.

CNN picked up the comment, and the incident has become yet another battle in the struggle for reform in the Muslim world of the modern day. Razine’s statement is emblematic of a disturbing interpretation of Islam exported from Saudi Arabia to the far corners of the world, and we’re better served as a global society every time the absurdity of this ideology is exposed.

To me, the issue of religiously mandated violence against women is part of a continuum of literalist interpretation of the Quran that includes banning women from driving, segregating women, allowing forced marriages of underage girls, and, ultimately, sanctioning intolerance and targeted violence against civilians of the kind perpetuated by al Qaeda. The way I see it, the Muslim world will be stuck in the Dark Ages as long as men with ideologies like this judge’s remain in positions of power, just as the West was crippled as long as preachers, judges, and politicians argued that the Bible sanctioned slavery, segregation, and sexism.

In this case, the debate over the right of Muslim men to “bitch slap” their wives underscores a literal read of verse 4:34 of the Quran, which states, according to a direct translation, that it’s OK to “beat (lightly)” a disobedient wife as an option of third resort after admonishing her and then turning away from her in bed. Trying to reconcile this literal read with the 21st century has led to something I call “the 4:34 dance,” where imams from Saudi Arabia to Texas have extolled the virtues of various degrees of abuse, from wet noodles to yardsticks.

In Woman in the Shade of Islam, a book widely available in mosques and on such Web sites as the online library of Young Muslims of Canada, Saudi sheik and author Abdur-Rahman A. Al-Sheeha advocates a special brand of domestic violence: “Beating without hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost.” This book was handed to me at my mosque in Morgantown, W.Va., where we once got a visit from a Muslim preacher who was on record saying it was OK to hit a woman with a yardstick or “rolled up newspaper.”

The latest controversy over the Saudi judge’s remarks underscores the strange challenges facing Muslims in the 21st century on so many levels. The judge assumed that the buck—or Saudi riyal, in this case—stops with the husband, an ironic presumption considering that in the seventh century the prophet Muhammad’s first wife was his boss, Khadija, a successful caravan merchant who proposed to him. Second, the judge used the purchase of an extravagant abaya as justification for abuse when in the seventh century of Islam women of Muslim society weren’t even required to wear these suffocating coverings, which women in Saudi Arabia are expected to wear today.

And, of all things, the judge was speaking at a seminar organized by the National Family Safety Program, a seemingly well-intentioned initiative started in 2005 in an attempt to curb child abuse and domestic violence in Saudi Arabia. A princess, Seetah bint Abdul Aziz, is listed as the head of the program, and another princess, Adila bint Abdullah, is deputy chairwoman. The topic of this weekend’s seminar was “The Role of Judicial and Security Institutions in Fighting Family Violence.”

In the wake of such gruesome murders as the beheading earlier this year of a young mother, Aasiya Hassan, in Orchard Park, N.Y., allegedly by her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, the co-founder of an American Muslim TV enterprise, American Muslims have tried to challenge interpretations like the one put forth by the Saudi judge. But the judge’s statement reveals that we need a serious reprogramming initiative that rejects prevailing backward notions, like the idea that “bitch slaps” are OK, and sets forth a very simple interpretation of Islam toward domestic violence: zero tolerance.

(Photo: Jennifer Hayes)

Asra Q. Nomani is the author of Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam. She can be reached at . This article was originally published in The Daily Beast.



16 COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE


I completely agree that we need to vigorously advocate on behalf of a zero tolerance policy when it comes to domestic violence.  It is absurd to debate over degrees of abuse—it sends a completely negative message to both men and women and allows abusers to hide behind faulty logic based on purported religious support for their abusive behavior.

I did, however, find some of Asra’s statements in this article to be a stretch. 

For instance, she wrote: “To me, the issue of religiously mandated violence against women is part of a continuum of literalist interpretation of the Quran that includes banning women from driving, segregating women, allowing forced marriages of underage girls, and, ultimately, sanctioning intolerance and targeted violence against civilians of the kind perpetuated by al Qaeda.“ 

While I followed along until the end of this sentence, I was perplexed by the jump from discrimination and violence against women to acts of terrorism against the general population.  While I agree that some have used literalist interpretations of the Quran to promote biased views towards women, I don’t think it is fair to lump that together with those who use the Quran to justify acts of terrorism.  We have go guard against overly generalized statements that wrap abusers into the same fold as terrorists.  The number of purported “terrorists” would sky-rocket if every man who abuses his wife was to be considered a terrorist.

In the following paragraph Asra writes that “The way I see it, the Muslim world will be stuck in the Dark Ages as long as men with ideologies like this judge’s remain in positions of power, just as the West was crippled as long as preachers, judges, and politicians argued that the Bible sanctioned slavery, segregation, and sexism.“ 

I think this oversimplifies the issue and draws a false dichotomy between East and West.  There are still many men in power in the “West” who sanction sexism. That is apparent, for instance, in the debates regarding the role of women in the Catholic church.  It is also apparent in the fact that women in America still earn less for the same work than their male counterparts.

Secondly, slavery and segregation are outlawed in every country in the world now, not just western countries.  The real issue is how well the laws are implemented.



The title is funny.

I had noted in an earlier comment that a Syrian traditionally-trained shaikh talked about the Arabic not translating to “beat” although the English has been used that way. I think the word is “dharaba”. It has “DRB” as its root consonants, which is used in other parts of the Quran that do not indicate physical beating. One is where it says the “khimar” is to cover the chest (as the women in pre-Islamic Arabia didn’t cover it up at all). In any case, there’s no violence involved.

The other example of the root word I saw, but which may need more exploration, was something about a dam and water. To me it didn’t seem to indicate beating, but some sort of physical separation. It would make sense in the context of marital problems, and the rest of the verse.

The other thing is that outside the context of warfare, the Quran mentions ‘curbing ones’s hands’ and restraining anger.

So I am not sure why anyone can honestly justify slapping a wife for going crazy at the abaya store.



@uma1:

I don’t think Asra was lumping violent husbands with terrorists. I believe she was focusing on the continuum of results that come from a literalist interpretation of the Qur’an. She seems to be referencing Wahabbism.

As for the East/West comparison, I agree that there are sexist elements in Western culture, but they are not the dominant position and either exist at the fringes of society or are constantly pushing up against a wave of reform (like the equal pay issue).

This judge made these remarks at an anti-domestic-violence seminar. He’s attempting to redefine domestic violence in a way that broadens permissive behavior. It’s calculated and thoughtful. And that’s scary.

That said, I think it’s unfair of Asra to characterize all of the Muslim world as living in the ‘Dark Ages.‘ Saudi maybe, but not all of the Muslim world.



@Saadia:

It’s based on non-nuanced, non-contextualized readings of the Qur’an.



Somehow that photo looks a little funny with the title too.

Asma, I think you might have also found that nuanced readings of the Quran helps you to read other things better, like your legal texts, even if they are secular.



Yea definitely. I don’t understand how one can really understand human texts without understanding humanity.



@Asma: For many of us, humanity is the thread between religious and what we call “secular” - the world around us. But that is also why the idea of a “religious Muslim lobby”, which may behave like a political entity that can potentially co-opt individuals, is not wholly desirable and maybe not completely organic.

It makes it seem like the interest is narrow, parochial, and potentially unaccomodating, instead of universally resonating. Muslims have historically been able to absorb and add to the cultures around them. Also, an overly taxonomical categorization may work against being truly able to create coalitons of common interests between groups that may disagree on a few issues. Those coalitions are vital given that political actors know we live in a global society of not only cultural and ethnic, but religious diversity.

Also, the idea might perpetuate the new immigrant trend of “self-ghettoization” which, as one scholar (who I won’t name) said, isn’t healthy.

I still think it can be acknowledged that its easier and more obvious that minority networks develop, especially given the family-like dynamics of Muslim societies. For others, networks develop within the majority Judeo-Christian culture and so they might be less conspicuous.

The political interest lies is being able to work toward civil rights issues (but coalitons with other groups have often formed), being able to understand and explain trends in Muslim or otherwise native countries, and being able to counter extreme ideologies using sound scholarship. The last is important as a way to mitigate extremism while lessening the need for the military option overseas.



I think we do have a theological problem with the Daraba verse. Why did God not simply use a clear word for seperating from such a spouse? Why use an ambigious word that can so easily be (mis)interpreted as “to hit”? Why are only the male spouses the subject of the phrase while females the sole object of the phrase (Darab-uu-hunna has a masculine 3rd person plural subject ending and feminine 3rd person plural object = pretty hard to misinterpret).

These are big questions that make me uncomfortable with simply accepting that Daraba counterintuitively “contextually” means *not* hitting. And, I am even a man who would take a wife-beater out behind the shed for some re-education, cough, cough. I doubt a Bedouin would be so sophisiticated enough to “contextualize” Daraba.



Sometimes I wonder if this struggle to understand verses like the Daraba verse is itself God’s reason for revealing such complicated verses. In the course of the struggle, we work to reform and revive our religion. The complexities force us to keep our faith fresh.

But then I am perplexed by all of the women who suffer because of such verses, and my own rationale begins to break down.



It’s so frustrating that women are always oppressed and shunned from society because of the accident of their gender. Men who treat women unjustly should be disgusted with themselves. I think it’s hypocritical how some Muslim men who call themselves ‘faithful’ would beat their wives and marry off their daughters when they’re young. They think the fact that they’re men makes them superior enough to rule someone else’s lives. That’s why sometimes I have less respect for Muslim men than I do for atheist men. You don’t need religion to tell you how to treat other human beings.



>>should be disgusted with themselves.

But, they’re not which is the problem.

>>They think the fact that they’re men makes them superior enough to rule someone else’s lives.

Its society and culture that tells them they should; indeed, many men look to their female relatives and learn all about how women are supposed to defer to men.

>>That’s why sometimes I have less respect for Muslim men than I do for atheist men.

Ditto, and for the opposite gender as well :-\



One of the biggest problems is that women continue the cyycle. The reconstruct and allow the cycle of their oppression to continue through their support of stereotypes, for me and women. It’s definitely something that I struggle with my family, who are all middle eastern and Muslim. And when I attempt to argue with them about the stereotypes and question why they say what they say, I get labeled as a “liberal American” or as “apart of them.“

The problem with people just believing in traditions and religion all the time is that they become blind followers instead of inquisitive followers. If Allah is truly as might and powerful as we believe him/her to be than human questioning should not be a threat to his/her power. I think it’s ridiculous that some Muslims think questioning God and the Quran is being ‘unfaithful’ or ‘heretic.‘

Everyone has been blessed with the power to think, I just wish some people would use that power intelligently.



I think an interesting point implicit in Shahed’s initial remark is that religion itself provides a safe haven for abusers where there otherwise wouldn’t be one, or at least not a widely accepted one. Religion can elevate us to new levels, but can also serve our lowliest impulses, depending entirely on the framework within which we approach it.



There are few women or men with the courage of Asra Nomani. It is rare to find a person willing to stand up to the accepted ideas of Islam which were never practised by Muhammad (PBUH).

Today in America, women are treated in a degrading manner.
Often put in the basement or parts of the mosque where they are out of sight and unable to interact with the community. Passages from the Quran or Sunnah are used out of context to justify the practises in mosques.



Seem to be confused



A guy named Hamad Al-razine - who is called a “sheikh” has said its okay to hit your wife if she overspends. Now what do we do? How do we shake things up so he resigns? Is this even possible? Its not. That would be a joke. That’s what’s so disturbing. And no matter how upset our moderate section of the Muslim community may be - his is not a name that anyone will remember.

Saudi leaders and clerics do and say what they want, wreaking havoc all over the world and our leaders here in North America and Western Europe, who supposedly share our moderate, tolerant, humanitarian values, turn a blind eye, in the name of good business.



Page 1 of 1

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave comments.

Produced in
partnership with
See more of Altmuslimah's photographic campaign
Search altmuslimah


Subscribe to newsletter and feeds


Multimedia

Fashion Week: Malaysia (Vincent Thian/AP Photo, November 15, 2009)
iCover (Sadaf Syed, November 15, 2009)
Journeying through Oman (Lucy Marryat & Yoshi (Yusuf Misdaq), October 19, 2009)

Editors' blog

News briefs for week of February 8, 2010 - This week, a study finds that abstinence-focused sex education in American schools can persuade youth to delay sexual activity, sixteen-year-old Turkish girl buried alive for talking to boys, French authorities deny citizenship to man who forces his wife to wear a full veil, and female government leaders have done little to advance women's rights in Southeast and South Asia. (February 8, 2010) (2 comments)

News briefs for week of February 1, 2010 - This week stress on female virginity is put on blast, a women’s rights book is allowed onto Malaysian shelves, and the burqa debate continues in France and Denmark. (February 1, 2010) (0 comments)

News briefs for week of January 25, 2010 - This week, Muzzammil Hassan changes his defense and says he was the victim; Pakistani scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial in New York for shooting at U.S. officials while in custody in Afghanistan; a limited burqa ban in France may be easier to pass on the grounds of security than a total ban; and a Malaysian court ends the ban of book on challenges facing Muslim women. (January 27, 2010) (0 comments)

News briefs for week of January 18, 2010 - This week, the burqa ban discussion continues in France, attempts to outlaw hair straightening are rejected in Indonesia, FGM finds new opponents in Mauritania, and Hamas’s Islamic veil project is highlighted. (January 19, 2010) (0 comments)

News briefs for week of January 11, 2010 - This week, a €700 fine for burka clad women to be voted on in France, Coptic girls continue to be kidnapped and converted to Islam, a battered women's shelter provides refuge for Muslims in Baltimore, the culprits who maimed a Pakistani woman receive unusual and severe sentences, and world religions play a key role in the oppression and liberation of women according to the Elders. (January 12, 2010) (0 comments)

News briefs for week of January 4th, 2010 - This week, violence against women in Gaza is highlighted along with a Canadian Muslim women calendar. Muslim punk music and niqab bans continue to ruffle feathers and a Chinese professor speaks out about the Uighur, predominantly Muslim, minority. (January 5, 2010) (0 comments)

Readers' blog

Living up to the legacy - By historical account, being a Muslim female meant being virtuous, loving, knowledgeable, and empowered by her faith. Well it’s centuries later and although we cite to the legacy of Islam, we fail to live up to it or keep the legacy alive. (February 4, 2010) (1 comment)

Bridging literacy and cultural gaps in Pakistan - In addition to bridging cultural and socioeconomic gaps, the American International School System in Pakistan acts as an experimental model and incubator by incorporating some of the education reform principles advocated by grassroots organizations, education specialists and writers, and governmental agencies like the Ministry of Education. (January 3, 2010) (1 comment)

Islam and manhood - The infamy of Islamist terrorism over the past decade has created an image of the Muslim man as intrinsically prone to violent behavior, even if directed toward the self rather than the other. The image of the angry, flag-burning, chanting Muslim man has come to symbolize male violence. However the photos fail to explain that, firstly, the anger, in many instances, is justified, secondly, that the chants rarely spill over into to physical violence, and thirdly that violence is not exclusive to Muslim men. (December 25, 2009) (4 comments)

It’s not about the niqab, it’s about credibility - The question, which we all should consider now is why Al-Azhar scholars are not obeyed by the public any more? The simple and direct answer to this very complicated question is because Al-Azhar lost its credibility in the eyes of Egyptians. (October 17, 2009) (3 comments)

One woman’s journey toward pleasing Allah - Understanding the purpose and reasoning behind abaya is not something a Muslim girl learns the day she is born. For many, like myself, it was a slow and steady journey; one that required much research and reflection. (September 25, 2009) (3 comments)

Separation not segregation: a Muslim woman writes - By instituting a physical separation as the vessel for modesty-management the responsibility for modesty is devolved to the physical partition rather than necessarily imbuing the men and women with the social graces of modesty and respect in the way that they interact with each other. (September 24, 2009) (5 comments)

Founder & Editor-In-Chief
Asma T. Uddin

Executive Editor
Zahed Amanullah

Publisher
Shahed Amanullah

Associate Editors
Fatima Bahloul
Rabea Chaudhry
Fatemeh Fakhraie
Abbas Jaffer
Anjum Malkana
Enith Morillo
Shazia Riaz
Zehra Rizavi

Contributors
Uzma Mariam Ahmed
Fatima Ayub
Jack Fairweather
Hussein Rashid
Sarah Uddin
Rahilla Zafar
Rafia Zakaria
Our mission | Our partners| In the news | Contact us | Submit an article | Advertising