Domestic Violence in Islam

This is a conversation that needs to happen in the Muslim community. I am hoping that two articles on the Huffington Post’s Religion page that were brought to my attention yesterday will help this conversation along. They were written almost a year apart but both inspired me not just to reflect deeply, but to discuss the issue in more depth with my Religious and Secular mentors. It is my understanding that the first caused somewhat of a controversy on Twitter and inspired the second. I have read both carefully (more than once) and shared them with my most trusted mentors, including my Father. After much conversation and prayer, I've come to the conclusion that both articles are fundamentally well intention but, at the same time flawed. However, conversation being the ultimate goal they are an excellent start.

The first article The Islamic Solution to Stop Domestic Violence (published online at the Huffington Post’s Religion page, 03/05/12) was written by a gentleman named Qasim Rashid. He is a man I know only from Twitter (@MuslimIQ) and one or two articles I've read by him. Based on this minuscule amount of information, I do believe his intention is pure & he truly wants to end domestic violence. However, despite the title of his article (me and my mentors agree to different extents) his primarily focus of prevention is somewhat muddle in the short space he tried to use. After including a variety of supporting points in preamble to his main thesis there wasn't much space left to drive his main point home. He introduced examples of his own actions (volunteer work on behalf of victims) that suggest he is opposed to violence but, failed (for some) to state in no uncertain terms , “I Qasim Rashid, believe violence is wrong & Domestic Violence is unjustified by Islamic texts.” I don’t know if this was an oversight or on purpose but I believe such a statement would have strengthened his position.

One example he did use in his thesis was the wisdom behind verse 4:34 as grounds for his position. I have only ever read only one interpretation of this verse from my Father’s Quran. It reads:

The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The reformed women are devotees and protectors of privacy what God has protected. As for those women from whom you fear disloyalty, then you shall advise them, abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.

I have personally never read any interpretation of this verse that uses the word strike instead of separate but, I understand that translations of this verse very. Cultural/Patriarchal Misogynistic interpretations of the verse do exist that (I believe wrongly) use the word Strike. As Rashid quite correctly points out that the verse requires a Muslim couple to go through certain steps to resolve conflict and (& my Father agrees) it is absurd to suggest that the Quran requires such extensive lengths to avoid [emphasis added] violence, only to ultimately permit [emphasis added] it. Rashid goes on to state that this verse forces men to control their anger, remove themselves from the emotionally charged situations that may lead to domestic violence, while admonishing women to also incline towards reconciliation. However, the fact remains that an undisciplined (i.e. entitled) man, violent or narcissistic, will go to any length to justify his un-Islamic behavior.

To his credit, Rashid does go further; bringing up the fact that the Prophet Mohammad (swt) explicitly admonishes Muslims, ‘Do not beat your wives’ Indeed, the Prophet (swt) NEVER beat his wives. “Therefore demonstrating in word and deed that Muslim men cannot harm women for any [emphasis added] reason.

He closes with the reminder that domestic violence occurs because men let their anger rule their behavior. This I believe is a reference to an earlier warning where he (perhaps erroneously) cites findings by Dr. James Q. Wilson as medical fact. The Doctor’s position interpreted by the writer is:

…the part of the brain that stimulates anger and aggression is larger in men than in women. Likewise, the part of the brain that restrains anger is smaller in men than in women.

I haven’t seen the research so I don’t know if this is true. The second article posted 02/24/13, disputes it. However, it was brought to my attention by one of my secular mentors that this information has been interpreted by some as carte blanche for men to be violent. I believe that if you take the entire article in context, that is a misinterpretation of the writer’s intention. This information (correct or not) was intended as a reminder to men that they (may) have a pre-disposition toward violence that they themselves must guard against in emotionally charged situations and use the steps in the Quran as a guide to prevent violence.

The second article, Response to 'The Islamic Solution to Stop Domestic Violence' initially caused a bit of confusion because of its title which suggested it was a response specifically to Rashid’s. However the first paragraph states, the points discussed [there] are not limited to the post [Rashid’s article &] it addresses similar arguments that have been made by other writers [emphasis added]…on this issue It is VERY important to remember that sentence when reading the rest of the post as, it brings up issues Rashid never addressed in his prevention focused article, so strictly speaking it is a response to the ISSUE not the POST even though they reference him more than once in the body of the post.

Though only Hyshyama Hamin is listed at the author in the bi-line of the Response, there were four other women credited as co-writers at the end. I mention this simply because I only recognized two out of the five women associated with this article and have had significantly more interaction with one (out of the two I recognized) on Twitter than I have with Rashid. Based on that interaction I have no reason to believe this woman had any malicious intent as a participant in this Response, nor do I think she would take part if she believed there was malice on the part of any of the other co-writers. What’s more, I believe their overall intent mirrored Rashid’s: To END Domestic Violence. So I applaud their Response as the next step in a productive conversation on Domestic Violence.

As I stated earlier, this Response refutes information in the original (older) article regarding Dr. Wilson’s findings. Further, the women make a valid point that these findings should not be interpreted as black and white fact since (as with most things involving the human condition) numerous independent variables affect men’s attitudes toward women. I suggest you read the actual article to fully appreciate the depth and breathe of these variables that must always be kept in mind when discussing all forms of Violence Against Women.

The Response quite correctly praises Rashid for bringing up that 4:34 …in fact restricts the husband from using violence and thus promotes the adoption of a restraint and reconciliation approach, which is certainly a more progressive interpretation. But they also point out that this interpretation is more of a "preventative" measure and not necessarily a "solution." It’s true: prevention was predominantly the emphasis of his post. I don’t know him so, I don’t know what he meant by “solution” in the title. It's a Question best asked of him directly.

Moving on, another excellent point raised by the Response is about the full range of victims affected by Domestic Violence. By using verse 4:34 specifically, Rashid limits the example of prevention to spouses. The Response rightly points out that children, elderly women, daughters, sisters and mothers etc. are also affected. They suffer at the hands of their male family members, as well as female family members (such as a mother-in-law abusing the daughter-in-law and vice versa). However, the gist of Rashid’s position was summed up perfectly after he reminds us that not only did the Prophet (swt) clearly warn Muslims not to beat their wives and that he NEVER beat his own wives but, though he didn't go into relationship details, he went further stating that Prophet himself demonstrated in word and deed that Muslim men cannot harm women for any reason. Easy to comprehend and accept in the calm quiet of my living room as my Father dozes peacefully on the sofa. However, the post’s chief flaw (no matter how well intended) is that it fails to take into account the many causal and contributory social-economic and gender based factors raised by the Response and some would say simplistically says "it's a sin, don't do it." Additionally, the Response quite correctly encourages dialog on these factors that was lacking in the original post due to the writer’s laser focus on Religious examples of proper behavior without taking into account human nature beyond the questionable references to Dr. Wilson’s work. 

I am immensely grateful to Qasim Rashid for his desire to prevent Domestic Violence and his article that opened this conversation about it. I am grateful to the five women who were inspired enough to cobble together a response to and expansion of it. It is my sincere hope that this conversation continues beyond the pages of the Huffington Post and Twitter, beyond social media and transitions in to action that will ultimately lead to an end to Domestic Violence.

More recommended reading on the subject: Dance of Red Blog,  Real (Muslim) Men don't beat their wives, Real (Muslim) Men don't beat their wives REDUX & The Khan's Long Thoughts