Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Part Four

Posted by David Wood - August 1, 2007 on 7:52 pm | In Answering Muslims, Women in Islam | No Comments BASSAM SAID: “David, I rephrased what you said and stated that the woman is compared to the person who CONTINOUSLY IGNORES THE LAW about securing your property and thus gets affected.”

There’s quite a difference here, Bassam, enough to qualify your response as a “strained analogy.” A person who leaves his belongings unguarded in an area where the government enforces a law that people must guard their belongings is hardly comparable to a woman who dresses in a skirt in a country where this is entirely acceptable. You say that she has violated the law of God. Well, if we were to assume that Islam is true (circular reasoning, Bassam), you might be able to make that claim. But since the woman in the skirt has no reason to accept Islam, she can hardly be faulted for not obeying Muslim clothing restrictions.

BASSAM SAID: “Similarly, I am saying that the woman’s immodest dress could let the situation occur. She is partly responsible for what occurred; however that does not mean that she is to be punished.”

Let’s review what you said, Bassam. You originally said that an immodestly dressed woman is partly responsible if she is raped. I compared this to the claim that a man who leaves his car in his driveway without covering it is partly responsible if his car is stolen. You then said that this wasn’t enough—the woman had done far more than this. You then compared the woman’s action to a man who leaves his car unlocked, with expensive belongings ripe for the taking. So (and this is a fact, Bassam) when you see a woman who is not dressed according to Muslim clothing restrictions, in your mind she is like a person who leaves his possessions out in the open so that people can take them. Like it or not, this is disturbing.

Yet you say that the woman isn’t to be punished. Here’s a question, Bassam. When the French woman came to your country and was gang-raped, and the government charged her with a crime, but didn’t charge the men, did you protest? Or did you just accept the ruling like everyone else? Even worse, did you say, “Well, it was her own fault, since she got into the car with the men”?

BASSAM SAID: “I don’t see how there is anything repulsive in what I am saying.”

That’s part of the problem.

BASSAM SAID: “Sorry to say David, but you have not logically defeated my argument.”

I haven’t been trying to logically defeat your beliefs about women. All I’ve been trying to do here is to get people to see what you’re saying, and that your views are a result of Islam. It’s impossible to logically refute a person’s view that rape victims are responsible when they are raped (since this is a moral viewpoint). However, I do think it’s important for people to recognize that many Muslims see things this way. And you’ve done an excellent job helping me prove my point, Bassam. Thank you.

BASSAM SAID: “David said… ‘This would sound frightening to any woman.’ Then follow the Islamic dress code and have no fear.”

Again, you never cease to amaze me, Bassam. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, EVERYONE!!! You compared a woman in a miniskirt to a man who leaves his possessions unattended and unguarded, ripe for the taking. I said (following Um Yaquub) that this view is frightening to women. And your ominous reply was: “Then follow the Islamic dress code and have no fear.” Let me get this straight. Non-Muslim women should follow the Islamic dress code so that they won’t be raped by Muslim men? This is shocking. I suppose you would say that the entire world should convert to Islam so that we won’t be killed by Muslim terrorists.

BASSAM SAID: “Plus, why would you be frightened by me?”

What is frightening is that you are a moderate Muslim, from a moderate Muslim country, who is telling women that they should wear Muslim clothing to avoid being raped. You think like this, and so do millions of other Muslim men. Muslim men are raping women around the world, and it’s the result of a sick view among Muslims. The fact that it doesn’t bother you (or any other Muslims reading this blog) is just plain scary.

BASSAM SAID: “People need to overcome temptation rather they like it or not. But what I am telling you is that Islam makes this easier by offering practical solutions.”

Practical solutions such as forcing women to cover themselves completely, or be raped? Practical solutions such as cutting off people’s hands, or stoning them, or giving them hundreds of lashes? Practical solutions such as killing people for criticizing Muhammad? True, these tactics sometimes work, but at what cost? (Please read Infidel, and you can see the cost. Of course, you’ll have to wait until you come to America to read it, Bassam, since your country won’t allow such books. Censorship of criticism against Islam—another “practical solution.”)

BASSAM SAID: “Yes, we must overcome temptation. However, if there is something that we can do to ease the situation then why not opt for it?”

You “ease the situation” by controlling women in practically every way. It’s as if you’re saying, “Yes, we have to control women and make them miserable. But if it makes men’s lives a little easier, it’s all worth it.”

BASSAM SAID: “That doesn’t mean we go out looking for it and then try overcoming it. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are getting this faulty reasoning from the story of Jesus overcoming the temptation of the devil at the mountain.”

No, I’m not getting this from Jesus’ experience on the mountain. It’s just simple observation, Bassam. Americans don’t go into a rape-frenzy when they see a woman dressed in a miniskirt. But many Muslims do. What, then, is the difference between these two groups? Americans have seen women in miniskirts before. Muslims don’t see this much in their own countries. Hence, Americans have no problem when they see a woman in a miniskirt, while Muslims go berserk. You’re saying that the latter situation is better. I’m saying you’re wrong. Unfortunately, gang-rapes are taking place around the world right now because of the Muslim position.

BASSAM SAID: “First of all, Islam only says that it is permissible for one to have sex with his slave girl, NOT RAPE THEM.”

Have you read these accounts, Bassam? Let’s review. The families of these women had just been slaughtered, and the women were about to be sold into slavery. It’s obvious that they didn’t want to have sex with the Muslims. And yet Muhammad allowed it. If you don’t see that this is rape, the situation is even scarier than I thought.

BASSAM SAID: “You don’t take into account Islamic teachings that severely rebuke those who abuse those under their authority (slave girls included).”

Again, Muslims viewed sex with their slave-girls as a right (whether the girls approved or not), so these “rebukes” don’t apply to the rape of female captives.

BASSAM SAID: “I have emailed the author of the article and he said he will refute your weak response in an upcoming article. Once it is finished, I will send it to you.”

I checked out the response, and I have two pieces of advice. First, as for you, be careful who you listen to. And as for your friend, he should be careful when he assumes that his readers have absolutely no access to Hebrew resources. (I can’t come up with any other explanation for his inaccuracies, except that he assumes ignorance on the part of his readers.) But I think his errors require a full response, so I’ll post one in the next day or two.

BASSAM SAID: “As for the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations, I wish besides blabbing nonsense you could actually prove it.”

Well, I can show historically that Muhammad allowed his followers to rape their female captives. Of course, you simply reinterpret everything you don’t like, so no amount of evidence will convince you. But the ahadith speak for themselves, and any non-Muslim who reads them will be shocked by the treatment of women.

 


Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Part Three

Posted by David Wood - July 21, 2007 on 5:55 pm | In Answering Muslims, Women in Islam | No Comments

Bassam, you never cease to amaze me. You try to answer an objection and only manage to show that the objection has far more warrant than anyone had imagined. In my previous post, I tried to clarify your position by drawing some analogies. Since you had claimed that a woman who doesn’t dress according to Muslim regulations is partly responsible if she is raped, I attempted to show that this sort of reasoning, if correct, would apply to other situations (implying that practically every victim of a crime is worthy of blame). To see if you really believe your claim, I asked whether you would agree with the following parallel claim:


“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”


Interestingly, I thought you would agree that a person who parks his car in his driveway deserves no blame if his car is stolen, even though the car might not have been stolen if it had been covered with a tarp. Instead, you responded by saying that this example doesn’t do justice to the case of a woman who rejects Muslim clothing regulations. You even say that women who don’t dress according to Islamic law have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists!


Bassam said:


How logically fallacious could David’s examples be.


First, regarding the car example.


David’s example should been more like this…


“If you park your new car in the driveway, and you forgot to lock the door as you usually do and openly left your latptop and wallet on the car seat where everybody could see it as usual and your car and belongings then got stolen and the law of the country clearly states that you are not supposed to do so then you’re partly to blame.”


So if the person on a continuous basis makes himself or herself an easy target for thieves (just many women might do for rapists) and continually ignore the law of the country which states that citizens must always lock their doors and hide their personal belongings (just as the law of God commands the woman to dress up modestly) then I argue that yes, the person is party to blame. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE PERSON DESERVES IT OR THAT THE CRIMINAL IS JUSTIFIED. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE VICTIM COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE SITUATION BY TAKING CERTAIN PRECAUTIONS.


This is quite frightening, Bassam. Again, I assumed that you felt that a woman is to blame in the same manner as a man who leaves a shiny new car uncovered in his driveway. That is, they both leave something out in the open which might provide an evil person with an opportunity to do something wrong. (Notice, there’s no logical fallacy in what I said. I’ve taught logic courses in the past, Bassam, and I notice that you like to toss around these accusations without actually understanding them.) However, as your comment shows, you believe that a woman is far more culpable than I had imagined. Instead of comparing a woman in a miniskirt to a man who leaves something valuable where others may see it, you compare her to a man who leaves his car out in the open, unlocked, unguarded, with valuable possessions ripe for the taking! In other words, a man who leaves his valuables out in the open, where anyone can quite easily take them, is going out of his way to make the theft as easy as possible. And this is what you think about a woman who shows off her legs because she thinks they are pretty! You believe that she is doing everything in her power to make it as easy and as tempting as possible for a man to rape her! Needless to say, non-Muslims don’t generally feel this way, which is why we’re so repulsed by your comments. (And, given these comments, your claim that you aren’t saying that such a woman “deserves it” sounds hollow.)


Um Yaquub said that she would be frightened if you were her neighbor, and you took great offense at this. But you should try to understand the perspective of a person who hasn’t been taught since childhood that women who dress in a certain manner are (almost deliberately) making themselves “easy targets” for rapists. This would sound frightening to any woman.


You replied by saying that you wouldn’t want a Christian woman as a neighbor, since she might wear a miniskirt and tempt your son. But here we see a tremendous area of disagreement between our two camps. Human beings only learn to overcome temptation by confronting it and conquering it. I don’t want to keep my son locked in a room all his life just so he won’t sin. Rather, I want my son to achieve victory over temptation. All of my sons will grow up in the West, and they will certainly face temptation. But in the process, they will learn to deal with it. When a woman walks down the street in a miniskirt, my sons won’t go into a frenzy, because they will have learned to overcome their passions. The Muslim goal is to keep their sons from so much as seeing a woman. Then, when a Muslim teenager sees a woman without a burka for the first time (having been taught that such women have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists), he goes berserk, because he has never learned to control himself. (Indeed, I don’t see any emphasis in Islam on teaching Muslim men to control themselves. Instead, Muslim men learn how to control women.)


This is why there’s such a tremendous problem with rape among Muslims in the West. I can’t imagine why you don’t see it, when the problem can be seen in your own words above!


Bassam said: “Show me narrations that state that the Muslims RAPED their slave girls. I DON’T’ WANT YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SITUATIONS OR YOUR OPINIONS, SHOW ME THE PROOF. IF YOU DON’T THEN YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU MUST RETRACT THIS STATEMENT AND APOLOGISE.”


This was a nice try on your part. You want me to show you a narration saying that Muslims “raped” their slave girls. But you know as well as I do that in Islam, a female captive is the property of her owner, and he is free to have sex with her (since Muhammad granted men this right in the Qur’an). Hence, Muslims don’t view sex with captives as “rape,” regardless of whether the captives consent or not. This, of course, is a significant area of disagreement between Muslims and the West. In America, we would say that any sexual act in which the woman does not consent is an act of rape. Muhammad’s teachings, however, have kept the Muslim world in horrible darkness.


Keeping in mind the fact that Muslims would not use the word “rape” in describing sex with unwilling women, it is quite easy to meet your challenge. I know that you are familiar with the women of Banu al-Mustaliq. Muhammad and his followers killed the men, then took the women captive. The Muslims were a long way from home, and they wanted to have sex with the women. However, they also wanted to sell the women into slavery, so they didn’t want to get the women pregnant. They therefore decided to practice coitus interruptus, where the man pulls out his penis before ejaculating in the woman. They brought the entire matter before Muhammad, who had no objections to the Muslims having sex with the women. Indeed, Muhammad’s only recommendation was that the men shouldn’t use coitus interruptus!


So what do we have here? Muhammad and his followers slaughter the men of Banu al-Mustaliq and take the women as captives. Soon, the Muslims are going to sell the women into slavery. But the men want to have sex with their captives first, since the Qur’an guarantees their right to do so. We know, then, that the Muslims had sex with these women, whose families had just been slaughtered by Muslims and who were about to become slaves at the hands of Muhammad. The only question for us is whether these women wanted to have sex with the men who had annihilated their husbands and fathers, or whether they didn’t want to have sex with these men. I think it’s obvious that the women of Banu al-Mustaliq wouldn’t have wanted to have sex with the Muslims, especially since the men were about to sell them into slavery (where they would likely be further sexually abused). Hence, Muhammad granted his men the right to have sex with women who would have been repulsed at the thought of having sex with their Muslim captors, and this qualifies as rape. Your challenge, Bassam, is easily met. (For plenty of references, see “Muhammad and the Female Captives.”)


On a different matter, you continue to argue that Isaiah 3:17 talks about women being raped because they were haughty. You claim that “most” modern versions translate the passage as “secret parts.” I have eighteen English translations of the Old Testament, and only nine of them translate the passage as “secret parts.” The other half use some variation of “laying the head bare.” You claim that the word “scalp” isn’t in the text, but I must point out that (and here’s the key) neither is “secret parts”! The passage simply refers to something being laid bare. Some translators conclude that the passage is saying that the women’s bodies will be laid bare, while others (more literally) translate the verse as saying that the women’s heads will be laid bare. Notice, Bassam, that this latter translation fits the context much better, and is therefore the preferred translation. The women were rejecting the teachings of God, and had even become proud of it. To show their high status, they were wearing all sorts of ornaments on their heads. It certainly makes sense to think that Isaiah 3:17 says that their heads would be laid bare. But regardless of what you think, you can’t use a clearly ambiguous passage to support your argument just because you want to feel better about the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations.


You also claim that I am here doing the same thing I accused you of doing when you wanted to deny Muslims their right to beat their wives. But the situations are hardly comparable. I pointed out that Isaiah 3:17 may be translated in various ways, and that the most literal translation of the verse (as well as many others) has nothing to do with women being raped. Is that the case with Surah 4:34? Do half of our translations say nothing about beating women? On the contrary, all of my English translations guarantee a husband the right to beat his wife if she gets out of line. But you ignore the obvious meaning of the verse simply because you know that it is extremely offensive (and, perhaps, because deep down you have a better moral outlook than Muhammad). Again, the two cases are not the same.


Bassam said: “David keeps saying ‘thanks to Muhammad’, yet he is never able to prove that it is so.”


Perhaps I’m not able to prove it to you, since you’re quite unwilling to see any problems in Muhammad’s teachings. But to any non-Muslim, it is quite clear that many of the problems we see in the Muslim world result from the teachings of Muhammad. For instance, when women are raped, they are rarely able to establish this in court. Why? Because Muhammad declared that a woman’s testimony is only half as valuable as a man’s. Hence, when a woman says, “That man raped me!” and the man says, “No, she’s just a prostitute,” the courts must give higher status to the man’s testimony. The woman, of course, goes to jail (or takes some lashes).


And, again, we know that Muhammad allowed Muslims to have sex with their female captives, regardless of whether the captives were willing or not. This is certainly relevant to the way many Muslims view rape in the world today. Muhammad showed how infidels were to be treated. Is it a surprise that Muslims rape infidels today?


Bassam said: “You can check Sunan Abu Dawud, Book Book 38, Number 4366 in which the Prophet commands a rapist to be killed.”


I had a reason for asking you to share the details of this rape, Bassam. And yet you left out the details. Notice (1) that the woman was a Muslim in good standing, (2) that she was raped while praying, and (3) that the man confessed that he had raped her. No one is saying that Islam does not punish rapists who confess that they have raped good Muslim women during prayer. What we are saying is that Islam has practically nothing to say about a Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim (or even a Muslim) woman and denies his crime. In fact, in the Muslim world, it is the woman who will typically be punished in such situations.


If you’d like to continue, Bassam, I’d be happy to. We can have “Bassam Zawadi on Rape,” Parts Four, Five, and Six. But hopefully you are learning that, at least in the eyes of people who are able to critically evaluate Muhammad’s commands, Islam is full of offensive, repulsive, horrendous teachings.

 


More Bassam Zawadi on Rape

Posted by David Wood - July 17, 2007 on 11:07 pm | In Answering Muslims, Women in Islam | No Comments

In my last post, I pointed out Bassam’s frightening comment that governments are luring men to rape women by not implementing stricter clothing laws. Bassam’s claim is quite consistent with Muslim views. The problem, of course, is that because of this twisted view of women, many Muslims around the world see a woman’s dress as an invitation to rape. Moreover, Muslim authorities in many countries simply will not punish rapists. Bassam replied to my post, and I will address his comments.


Bassam said: “Did I say that if women who dress shamelessly lure men to rape them and are responsible? Yes they are partly responsible for if they didn't dress shamelessly then they wouldn't have enticed the rapist to attack them. This is basic logic that no one can argue with.”


So Bassam admits that he is claiming that a woman is “partly responsible” if she is raped, provided she was dressed immodestly, since the rape may not have occurred had she been dressed in Muslim garb. Now compare Bassam’s view to the following claims:


“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”


“If you’re black, and you go to a neighborhood full of white supremacists, and they kill you, it’s partly your fault, since you wouldn’t have been killed if you hadn’t gone to their neighborhood.”


If Bassam really believes what he says about women (and I know he does), then he should agree with these other claims.


Bassam said: “Did I say that THE RAPIST IS NOT TO BLAME? This is absurd. The Prophet punished the rapist with death. It is the rapist's fault for not lowering his gaze as commanded by God in Surah 24 and he has no authority to 'punish' a woman for dressing immodestly for this is vigilantism. It is the government's duty to ensure that women dress appropriately in the society and they definately don't take measures such as rape in order to do that.”


(1) “Did I say that the rapist is not to blame?” I never said that you claimed this. My point is that this is what happens in the Muslim world. Muslim men see a woman who isn’t dressed according to Muslim standards, and they gang-rape her. The woman complains to the police. The police talk to the men, who say, “We thought the woman was a prostitute, because of the way she was dressed.” Since the testimony of women isn’t equal to that of a man in Islam, the police must side with the rapists. Best case scenario, the men will be charged with fornication. But they won’t be charged with rape. Most likely, they won’t be charged with anything. The woman, if she is in the right Muslim country, may even go to jail. Like it or not, Bassam, this is what happens over, and over, and over in the Muslim world (thanks to Muhammad).


(2) “The Prophet punished the rapist with death.” Bassam, please give readers the details and sources regarding Muhammad’s command that rapists be killed. Of course, you have to admit that it was perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rape their female captives (since Muhammad himself allowed this). And that’s the problem. Muhammad definitely allowed rape in certain situations. Why not rape a woman who needs to be taught a lesson?


(3) You claimed that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce clothing restrictions. But your government does enforce clothing restrictions—by allowing men to rape women who don’t follow the rules. You can’t deny this, Bassam. You know that’s what happens in your country. If a woman is dressed immodestly, and she is raped, the government will ignore her cries for justice, just as it will ignore the pleas of a woman who is constantly assaulted by her husband (thanks to Muhammad).


Bassam said: “What I find most interesting is that the very thing that David is repulsed by in his article is found in his Bible. For the God of the Bible allegedly commanded women to be raped because they were haughty!!! They used to be proud of their adornments and therefore God said that they asked for it!!!”


Bassam gave a link to this article, which argues that in Isaiah 3:17 God punishes haughty women with rape. According to the translation in the article, Isaiah 3:17 says: "Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts." The article goes on to argue that “discover their secret parts” means that the women will be raped.


The problem here is that this argument is (perhaps deliberately) based on an outdated and flawed translation of Isaiah. Consider two modern translations, the first being the most popular English translation, the second being the most literal English translation:


New International Version: "Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald."


New American Standard Bible: "Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs, And the LORD will make their foreheads bare."


Is there anything about rape here? Not at all! And this makes it all the more shocking when Bassam triumphantly comments: "I PROVED IT FROM YOUR BIBLE THAT WOMEN WERE RAPED FOR BEING HAUGHTY. SHOW ME THIS SAME DISPICABLE THING IN ISLAM."


Show him the same thing in Islam? Just watch the news, Bassam. It happens all the time (thanks to Muhammad).

 


Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Are Women in Miniskirts Asking for It?

Posted by David Wood - July 13, 2007 on 9:20 pm | In Answering Muslims, Women in Islam | No Comments One of the most frightening things about Islam is that even moderate Muslims have some very radical views. For instance, we saw recently that Bassam Zawadi believes that it’s okay for Muslims to invade countries (causing a great deal of bloodshed) which prohibit the preaching of Islam. More recently, Bassam has repeated the common Muslim charge that women who dress immodestly are asking for rape. He said in the "comments" section:

“You have to understand that Western Law easies and facilitates these kind of things to occur. Allowing women to dress up immodestly and acting shamelessly lures men to rape them and promotes fornication and adultery which can result in Aids. If these things occur in Muslim countries then its because they got influenced from the West and not from Islamic law. I am not talking about the people but talking about the governing system.”

It seems, however, that Bassam has modified the claim. Normally, Muslims claim that women who wear, for example, miniskirts, are inviting men to rape them. But Bassam is criticizing governments. He appears to be saying that if a government does not force women to dress according to Muslim standards, the government is “luring” men to rape the women.

The most important thing to keep in mind here is that Bassam is not a radical Muslim. He is quite moderate in his views, and he lives in a country that is very moderate (United Arab Emirates). But even so, Bassam, like many other Muslims, associates clothing styles with an invitation to rape. In the eyes of Muslims, if a woman wears certain clothing, and she is raped, it's her own fault. She has no right to complain. In the West, we blame the criminal rather than the victim. In the Muslim world, the rape victim is often viewed as the criminal.

For instance, in the United Arab Emirates (again, quite moderate), a woman named Touria Tiouli was gang-raped by three Muslim men. She reported the assault to the authorities, but the rapists claimed that Tiouli was a prostitute, and she was promptly charged with fornication. You can read the results of the trial here. Notice the pattern in the article. Some men asked if Tiouli needed a ride home. Since she agreed to get into the car with the men, she was inviting them to rape her. (It should be noted that Tiouli came from France, where getting a ride home does not qualify as grounds for rape.)

We see this pattern quite frequently among Muslims. Here’s an article about one of the Muslim brothers who went on a gang-raping rampage in Australia. He justified his crimes by saying that it was the victims’ fault, since they were willing to go along with the Muslims to a party. Apparently, if a Muslim invites you to a party, and you agree, you’re a bad girl, so you deserve to be raped.

Sheikh Qaradawi has summed up the Muslim position here. If a woman is raped because she was dressed immodestly, she is guilty of provoking the rape. I confess that I find this view absolutely repulsive.

Islam is the “Religion of Blame.” If a woman is raped, it’s her fault, not the rapist’s. If Muslims kill innocent people, it’s the West’s fault, not the terrorists’. Take another look at Bassam’s words above, and you’ll see that he not only blames rape on a woman’s clothing, he also blames the West for rape in the Muslim world! (He says: “If these things occur in Muslim countries then its because they got influenced from the West and not from Islamic law.”)

This is how Muslims get by. Whenever a problem is found in Islam, Muslims point a finger somewhere else. Change will not come until Muslims take a good look at the real source of their problems: Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the Hadith.

For more on rape in Islam, see:

“Rape in Islam: Blaming the Victim”

“Rape of Unbelievers in Islam”

“Muhammad and the Female Captives”

 


Hit them becomes tap them symbolically?!?

Posted by Nabeel Qureshi - June 16, 2007 on 1:59 pm | In Answering Muslims, Women in Islam | No Comments I read David's article below, titled "The Qur'an, Surah 4:34". Doing nothing more than providing some translations and a link, I figured nothing could really be said against it -- he really didn't say anything except quote translations of the Qur'an.

But lo! A Muslim friend responds, telling him to read the actual interpretation of the Quran. Taking a break from my studies, I decided to read this article. What we find is the same methodology that Muslims almost always employ in attemtping to circumvent the obvious: 1 - A labyrinthine reinterpretation of a clear verse, 2 - Examples that might support the reinterpreted view but do not exclude the clear view, 3 - An utter exclusion of evidence that goes contrary to the reinterpreted view, and my favorite part, 4 - An accusation that Christians are prejudiced diabolical Islamophobes, "hell-bent" on using improper methodology to prove their insidious agenda.

1 - The words which say "beat them" are reinterpreted as meaning "tap them lightly, symbolically showing your disproval." Interestingly, Allah saw fit to use the words "hit them" instead of "tap them". But to show that this modern reinterpretation is correct, our Muslim friends give us some supporting examples from the Quran and Islamic history. Let's look at that in point 2.

2 - The prophet Job is mentioned in the Quran as having been self-forced into a position of hitting his wife, and in order to fulfill this requirement, he hit her with some basil. The author of the article says that this is the only verse in the Quran "that categorically refers to what some people wanna label as 'wife beating'." Although I thought the verse that mentions beating wives is also talking about wife beating, apparently this is not the case.

Then, records are used to show what hitting someone without hurting them is like in modern times - Job used grass, but the author of this Muslim article refers to a tradition in which it's okay to hit with a stick used for a toothbrush (siwak).

Another tradition is quoted in which Muhammad says: "there shall be no infliction of harm on oneself or others." The author then goes on to use this gratuitously, as if to say "we cannot harm anyone at all, and that includes women!" but he ingores the fact that this hadith requires context (which he did not provide) and he is clearly using it in a false way (for the infliction of harm on others is allowed in Islam if justifiable, e.g. wars, executions, punishments, etc. Therefore, in Islam, there must be justifiable exceptions to the "do not inflict harm" rule, and wife-hitting could fall into it).

Finally, the author uses quotes from Muhammad which say "If (the women commit a manifest indecency), then refuse to share their beds and hit them without indecent violence". This is used as evidence by our Muslim friend that Muhammad does not condone hitting women! It might say "don't be excessive in your physical punishment" but nowhere does it say "do not use physical punishment." In fact, it clearly says "hitting them is okay, indecent violence is not."

These are the examples that this article uses to show that Islam does not condone physical violence against women. More often than not, they show that it is okay to hit women! Yes, don't hurt them too much, but hit them if necessary. Clearly, the defense's claim that hitting women is not allowed falls extremely short.

3 - But what about all the evidence that supports the view that Islam allows for physical violence against women?

- According to Sahih Muslim, Muhammad hit his wife Aisha, causing her pain! Aisha herself was the authority of this hadith. I always agree with Muslims about Muhammad's sincerity; he practiced what he preached, and this is no exception.

- According to Sunan Abu Dawud, when men complained to Muhammad about their wives, Muhammad allowed them to hit the women. These women came in the morning to Muhammad complaining about their abusive husbands, whom Muhammad proclaimed to be "not the best men among the Muslims". Why did he not just say hit them with basil leaves, or tap them symbolically? Must have slipped his mind.

- According to Tabari and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad said in his farewell address that it's okay to hit your women, just don't be excessively violent, for women are like domestic animals, given to the men by God (to be taken care of, I'm guessing).

Really, the list goes on and on. The obvious evidence seems to be utterly ignored. Instead of dealing with the evidence, many Muslims use bad examples to try to prove their point. When this does not work, they will often move on to pointing fingers and calling names.

4 - Is it true that Christians are biased Islamophobes? In the article that was referred to by our Muslim friend, Christians are accused of being prejudiced, having a diabolical agenda, and using improper methodology. Let me say it (for the hundredth time): I am not an Islamophobe! If Islam can be shown to be true, I will accept it. But far from proclaiming the truth, we see Muslims reinterpreting the obvious, providing bad arguments, and ignoring the deluge of evidence against them. How can I determine Islam to be true when its defense entirely ignores the obvious?

Fact: Muhammad hit his wife!!! This is according to one of the top two sources of hadith! Do not call this hadith weak, for Imam Muslim himself did not do so! How are we supposed to properly interpret history if Muslims keep throwing out all the history that goes against their preformed conclusions? According to one of the best historical records, Muhammad hit his young wife. According to other books in the Sahih Sitah (the six most authentic books of Islamic tradition) Muhammad allowed many of his men to hit their wives, though he said it was not the best thing to do, and he admonished Muslims right before his death that it's okay for them to hit their wives if the wives are committing open indecency, and that wives are like domestic animals given by God. The early tradition screams the truth: physical violence is allowed in Islam.

My Muslim friends! Defend your religion as it is, not as you want it to be! The stance that should be defended by Muslims is: "Limited physical violence against women is not immoral." You might have a shot at that one. Or you could even say: "Though Islam allows limited physical aggression against women, this does not mean it has a low view of women. This is the way Allah has ordered the world, and it is not wrong." But to say that Islam forbids any violence against women is, yet again, ignoring the obvious, and it's this kind of flawed methodology that led me away from Islam.

Let me say it again, in another way: I never thought that Islam's provision for hitting women was evidence to leave Islam; maybe that is the way Allah intended it, and who am I to say otherwise? I thought "If God says 'If your women have been unchaste, you have the option to hit them, but only lightly' then maybe that's best." It didn't budge me at all. What caused me to wonder was the fact that defenders of Islam were denying the obvious truth: that hitting women is indeed allowed. I soon began to see bad methodology everywhere. It became clear to me, then, that I had to focus on a proper method of investigating the truth.

When I began accepting the truth for what it was, that which had been obvious to me became flawed, and what was hard to believe became the only thing I could believe. The truth set me free.

 


The Qur’an, Surah 4:34

Posted by David Wood - June 12, 2007 on 5:01 pm | In Answering Muslims, Women in Islam | No Comments

Surah 4:34 is a troubling passage which commands Muslim men to beat their rebellious wives. Since the passage speaks for itself, I will simply include four translations of the verse, so that readers may know that the meaning isn’t lost in translation. (Note that Ali adds the word "lightly" to water down the text.)

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. (Pickthall)

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. (Dawood)

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 whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Yusuf Ali)

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (M.H. Shakir)

Click here for more on this topic.