The question to IBDH is a fundamental one. Who should have the right to legislate: the unlimited, perfect Creator or the limited and flawed human beings?

The so-called Islamic marriage contract recently proposed by the Muslim Institute has attracted a lot of attention in the Muslim blogosphere lately, much of it negative, for reasons anyone who has read it will understand. It contains brazenly anti-Isla…

“Rather than get into the intricate details of one hadith or another, I think we ought to be approaching this another way. In my experience, the usual approach taken by Muslims is “you bring your daleel and I’ll bring mine”. That can never and will never work.”

I understand what you’re saying and I can’t argue with your experience, but surely point-counterpoint leading to an eventual consensus or situation of ‘agreeing to disagree’ is the most logical, rational, tried and trusted formula for debate the world over?

Whilst I acknowledge that one verse doesn’t make a tradition, or that one narration doesn’t paint a balanced character portrait, there are, in my honest opinion, some troubling canonical texts for those wishing to practice Islam, follow Muhammad bin Abdullah’s tradition to the letter and also conform to the standards expected of a citizen in a secular democracy.

Quite the contrary to what you assert, singular, yet nonetheless vitally important texts for the practise of Islam have been responsible for the formulation of Islamic religious dogma. Were individual texts as ‘dispensable’ as you purport them to be, I think the current debate over the framing of Islam within the context of British citizenship would be considerably more open and flexible.

Reelpolitik, rightly, raises the Islamic legal question of permissibilty. Are the actions of Muhammad in the ahadith cited previously recommended or desired or compulsory or, or, or…In these instances, involving behaviour towards ones wife, I must confess to being egregiously uninformed. Yet, the mere fact that such behaviour was exibited by someone considered virtually infallible, whose actions have debated and discussed for nearly a millenium and a half, raises questions of its own.

“Focusing on chains of narration is a distraction.”

I contend that it is NOT a distraction for the very fact that without a verifiable and reliable chain of narrators, the matn itself is meaningless, as I’m sure you would agree. Without the pioneering work of the early hadith scholars, contemporary Islam would be in a pretty pickle. Witness the amount of emails, memorabilia and comments today about the illustrious 99 names, whose compilation as a set can be traced to a weak, interpolated hadith. Any self-respecting calendar, living room or work place from Syria to Egypt (can’t speak for the Gulf or further east) is not complete without at least one example of this wholly invented (wa Allahu a’alam) list. Yet this superstition persists precisely because of a lack of awareness regarding narrator quality.

“First, there is not a single classical scholar who says that we should be abusing our wives.”

This is where we differ. Our definitions obviously diverge over whether light slapping, or beating would be considered ‘abuse’.

“That means that in over 1400 years, not one scholar has supported “Imam Badr ud-Deen”’s opinion regarding “the approval of domestic violence”.”

As to whether any scholars have ’supported’ my opinion that these various texts advocate abuse, well, you are of course correct: no scholar has ever considered these actions an ‘abuse’ to my knowledge. Yet as to whether any non-’scholars’, either Muslim or non-Muslim, or non-Muslim scholars of Islam support my contention that these texts constitute abuse, then I’d say that a significant number do.

“Furthermore, Badr ud-Deen has stated that his viewpoint is affected by “secular democracy”, something that is quite counter to Islam.”

This is worrying, but not altogether unexpected. The jury, as I’m sure you would agree, is still out on whether the two are compatible. A significant proportion of UK Muslims and most if not all non-Muslims, I would wager (not literally of course, haraam alayiy!), would hope that they are not counterpoised and further antagonism can be avoided.

“Third, I note that Badr ud-Deen has not proposed a solution to a problem, but is pointing out what he considers to be a problem with Islam. Some of us who have replied have been defensive, but in reality the issue is that Islam is an ideology, not a religion. Islam solves problems, whereas secular democracy leaves the decisions up to mankind. As this post clearly shows, when mankind is left to decide, we end up with all kinds of nonsense.”

I wasn’t aware I should have proposed a solution. My purpose for darkening your corner of the webosphere was just to make you and others aware of the some problematic hadiths and take issue with a statement that I disagreed with.

Some Muslims and non-Muslims rail against uberliteralists such as Ibn Hazm, but they should really extend their discussion to encompass Islam as a whole, which in my honest opinion, is hampered by its stubborn overreliance on texts of ill-repute.

You assert that Islam is an ideology and not a religion. This presents all sorts of problems from a theological standpoint, as it maintains that Allah has an ‘id’. All contemporary Muslims, to my knowledge, believe that Allah is transcendent and therefore cannot possess ‘human’ qualities such as an ideolect.

I understand your stated disapproval of secular democracy and its attendant human concepts, but what you cannot deny is that there has necessarily been a ‘human’ element in the formulation of Islamic doctrine: from revelation to tradition to law, there has been ‘human’ involvement at every stage, conceptually and practically.

Whilst you may disagree with the concept or some of the applications of secular democracy per se, could an ‘Islamised’ version suit your tastes? For a contemporary viewpoint on this and a discussion of some of the issues surrounding Islam and democracy, I would recommend a visit to Dr Qaradaawy’s site (http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=6145&version=1&template_id=119&parent_id=13). He’s written a trilogy of recent articles addressing just this issue, of which the latest via the link, is but the latest instalment.

Jazakum ‘Allahu khayran

Rather than get into the intricate details of one hadith or another, I think we ought to be approaching this another way. In my experience, the usual approach taken by Muslims is “you bring your daleel and I’ll bring mine”. That can never and will never work.

For starters, lets consider the following example from the Qur’an, where Allah seems to curse the Muslims:
“Woe to the worshipers” [Al-Maun, Ayah 4]

Read alone, that one complete verse of the Qur’an would seem to suggest that being Muslim is a one-way ticket to the Hellfire. However, I’ve taken one complete verse, from one surah, from a complete book. That is rather like taking one hadith, from an entire hadith collection, from the complete life of a human being.

Focusing on chains of narration is a distraction. This is about something else: Whenever a sahabi heard a narration of Muhammad (saw) – even an authentic hadith – he was encouraged to convey it to another Muslim because that 2nd person may have a better understanding of the hadith. There is a distinct difference between someone who knows all of the evidences and someone who is able to derive a ruling.

I note three things: First, there is not a single classical scholar who says that we should be abusing our wives. That means that in over 1400 years, not one scholar has supported “Imam Badr ud-Deen”’s opinion regarding “the approval of domestic violence”.

Furthermore, Badr ud-Deen has stated that his viewpoint is affected by “secular democracy”, something that is quite counter to Islam.

Third, I note that Badr ud-Deen has not proposed a solution to a problem, but is pointing out what he considers to be a problem with Islam. Some of us who have replied have been defensive, but in reality the issue is that Islam is an ideology, not a religion. Islam solves problems, whereas secular democracy leaves the decisions up to mankind. As this post clearly shows, when mankind is left to decide, we end up with all kinds of nonsense.

“Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but NEVER ON THE FACE, making it more of a symbolic measure then a punitive one.”

Perhaps it’s just me, but from Allah’s use of the ‘word’ aDrabuhunna, commentators have asserted that any ’strike’ should not be on the face, should be light etc. I appreciate that they have made their conclusions based on narrations about prophetic tradition, but why did Allah use this particular word? He could’ve used any number of other words to denote a ‘light, symbolic’ quality. Instead, He chooses to use the same verb associated with Moses and his stick.

“True following of the sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad (P), who NEVER RESORTED TO THAT MEASURE, regardless of the circumstances.”

But I contest that HE DID resort to physical violence, with his ‘favourite’ wife, and even without observing the preconditions that you (and the commentators, jurists before you) state. We know this because of the ‘exemplary’ isnad of the Sahih Muslim hadith 1619.

Last point, and sorry to be pernickety, but could you provide an ‘original’ (ie Arabic edition) hadith number for your Imaam al-Bukhaari citation,

“…How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?… (Sahih Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).”

I only have access to a summarised copy in English of one volume and I prefer to use the Arabic libraries online.

“c. The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction DOES NOT IMPLY ITS DESIRABILITY. In several ahadith, Prophet Muhammad (P) discouraged this measure. Among his sayings are the following: “Do not beat the female servants of Allah;” “Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you;” and”[It is not a shame that] one of you beats his wife like [an unscrupulous person] beats a slave and maybe he sleeps with her at the end of the day.” (See Riyadh Al-Saliheen, op.cit,p.p. 137-140).”

The same applies for Imam an-Nawawi’s Riyadh us-Saaliheen. Could you provide details for the Arabic edition, please? It’ll save me an immensely long trawl through my ‘miniature’ copy with tiny Arabic script.

Many thanks.

But despite the quote from Wikipedia citing this ‘ruling’, it’s hardly that. Rather it’s a narration by one Ibn Jareej from ‘Ataa included in al-Jasaas’s treatise; there’s no ruling here from al-Jasaas himself. I’m not quite sure where Abd ul-Haleem Abu Shaqqah gets his ruling from that castigation ’should only’ be applied with a miswak, given that in the same section of Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, the use of the hand is discussed.

Don’t forget that the Araak tree roots from which the siwak is taken are ubiquitous in the Arabian peninsula. They can be quite big and, as anyone can testify who’s touched a ‘natural’ miswak toothbrush, are durable and sturdy. My wife says she’d prefer the use of a large, prickly hatol as, she maintains, at least we could eat it afterwards (joke).

If the problem relates to the wife’s behavior, her husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem continues, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in deliberate mistreatment and expresses contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations.

Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but NEVER ON THE FACE, making it more of a symbolic measure then a punitive one. Following is the related Qur’anic text:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat (tap) them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (4:34)

Even here, that maximum measure is limited by the following:

a. It must be seen as A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE REPEATED EXHORTATION OF MUTUAL RESPECT, KINDNESS AND GOOD TREATMENT, discussed earlier. Based on the Qur’an and hadith this measure may be used in the cases of lewdness on the part of the wife or extreme refraction and rejection of the husband’s reasonable requests on a consistent basis (nushuz). Even then, other measures, such as exhortation, should be tried first.

b. As defined by hadith, it is NOT PERMISSIBLE TO STRIKE ANYONE’S FACE, CAUSE ANY BODILY HARM OR EVEN BE HARSH. What the hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of miswak (a small natural toothbrush)! They further qualified permissible “striking” as that which leaves no mark on the body. It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from “abuse” in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and “lesser of the two evils” measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of “physical abuse,” “family violence, ” or “wife battering” in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.

c. The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction DOES NOT IMPLY ITS DESIRABILITY. In several ahadith, Prophet Muhammad (P) discouraged this measure. Among his sayings are the following: “Do not beat the female servants of Allah;” “Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you;” and”[It is not a shame that] one of you beats his wife like [an unscrupulous person] beats a slave and maybe he sleeps with her at the end of the day.” (See Riyadh Al-Saliheen, op.cit,p.p. 137-140). In another hadith the Prophet(P) said:

…How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?… (Sahih Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).

d. True following of the sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad (P), who NEVER RESORTED TO THAT MEASURE, regardless of the circumstances.

e. Islamic teachings are universal in nature. They respond to the needs and circumstances of diverse times, cultures and circumstances. Some measures may work in some cases and cultures or with certain persons but may not be effective in others. by definition, a “permissible” act is neither required, encouraged or forbidden. In fact it may be BETTER TO SPELL OUT THE EXTENTof permissibility, such as in the issue at hand, rather than leaving it unrestricted and unqualified, or ignoring it all together. In the absence of strict qualifiers, persons may interpret the matter in their own way, which can lead to excesses and real abuse.

f. Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any “Muslim” can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Qur’an or hadith). Such EXCESSES AND VIOLATIONS ARE TO BE BLAMED ON THE PERSON(S) HIMSELF, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet (P).

‘Imam Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi sounds to me like some fundamentalist Christian trying to pretend he is a Muslim scholar. They are plenty of jokers like him on YouTube, one even had the audacity to pretended that he was hafiz and studied at Al Azhar.’

Mayhap I ’sound’ like one of these fellows, but I’m not. Why Imam Husayn Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi though I wonder…

Could you provide the hadith nos. from Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah,

“The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best and kindest to his wife (Tirmidhi, ibn Maja)”

…so that I can verify the (Arabic) matn and isnad?

Likewise,

“A woman came to the Prophet of Islam stating her father had given her in marriage against her wishes to his nephew: So the Prophet gave her choice of repudiating the marriage.(Bukhari, bint Khidam)”

Your Wikipedia excerpt is a trifle worrying,

“Some Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, even where permitted, are not to be harsh or some even contend that they should be “more or less symbolic.” According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating. Abu Shaqqa refers to the edict of Hanafi scholar al-Jassas (d. 981) who notes that the reprimand should be “A non-violent blow with siwak [a small stick used to clean the teeth] or similar. This means that to hit with any other means is legally [Islamically] forbidden.”

To describe a consensus of commentators advocating a ‘light beating’ on 4:34 is to be economical with the truth. On the contrary, a cursory reading of the appropriate parts of at-Tabari’s Jaami’a ul-Bayaan via altafsir.com, suggests that incomplete consensus rests on delivering a ‘non-violent’ beating and that the beating itself is prescribed to ensure ‘obedience’ to Allah if she rebels against you in divinely-ordained matters. Non-violent does not necessarily equate to ‘light’.

Nonetheless, why advocate any sort of corporal punishment? Surely this sort of behaviour is incompatible with citizenship in a secular democracy…

I seem to remember hearing about the Imam al-Jassas (Abu Bakr al-Jassas ar-Razi)ruling somewhere, but I don’t have a copy of Ahkam ul-Qur’aan to verify this.