And we're back. We rejoin our posting series in progress, after the brief interlude where pretty much everyone sat around, stared at their news source of choice and went, WTF? and then there was cheering. Speaking of people who distort Islam...back to the Caner book!
The Disciplining of a Wife
I told you we would get to the other half of the surah an-Nisa 4:34 verse. For refresher purposes: " 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 ye 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)."
But we're dealing with only this section: "As to those women on whose part ye 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)."
The problem with this verse should be pretty obvious. It commands the beating of a man's wife. And we, as modern day people, are shocked and appalled. We sit there, mouths gaping open, wondering how anyone can believe that this is the word of God when it is telling men that they may hit their wives. But here's the thing. This was not written in modern times. I remind you, again, that at the time the Qur'an was written, men owned their families. They could do pretty damn much whatever they wanted, and no one would say anything at all. If they wanted to, if they felt they had cause, they could beat their wives to death. And this wasn't just in Arabia. This was all over the world. Men could 'discipline' their wives up to very recently in history, even in America and it was overlooked, ignored, because she was his wife and it was his business. Thankfully, things have changed. But let's get back to this part of the verse.
In spite of the proper horror that we feel for spousal abuse, this is (again) one of those moments where you have to take the context into account and understand that this was a step forward, at the time. Now, Mohammed (and Allah, if you believe that the Qur'an is divine), are making men go through a process *before* they start beating on wives they think are being disloyal or treacherous. First, speak to them. Air your issues. It might not be the calm discussion we would view, hell, it might be an argument. But that can solve a lot of problems, getting things out that way. If that doesn't work, no sex! The husband can sleep in a separate room for up to four months, in Islam. And, given that polygamy is permitted in Islam, it doesn't mean that he's not getting his needs met, necessarily. Just that he's expressing his displeasure with her conduct. Not, perhaps, the way we would do it today, but at the time...logical and even sensible. And it puts some distance between the initial anger over whatever the issue is, gives the wife (assuming she is really in the wrong), a chance to correct, before the husband is allowed to resort to physical discipline. Again, and I cannot overstate this enough, to modern minds, it is never okay for a man to hit his wife. But this was not modern times. I know that all the translations I have read include the parenthetical '(lightly)' after the beating instruction. I have read opposing points of view as to whether that is a translator's attempt to make it more palatable or what is actually meant. Unless I learn Arabic, and classical, Qur'anic Arabic at that, I will never know.
I do know that it is said that Mohammed was meant to be an example to the Muslims. That he was, perhaps, the embodiment of the sentiment we hear in this quote: 'Preach the Gospel always, when necessary, use words.' Meaning, while he gave the Qur'an to the people, he, more than that, embodied the spirit behind the letter. And Mohammed was, it is reported, never known to have hit any of his wives. And you *know* he had problems with that many wives. It's even been reported, on several occasions, some of his difficulties. There was the incident of Aisha being accused of infidelity, the 'honey' incident. And likely many more we never knew about. If Mohammed is taken to be the perfect Muslim and all Muslim's are meant to emulate him, then none of them would ever raise a hand to their wives. But that's in a perfect world, and we know that there is spousal abuse in Muslim households, just as there is any Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Jewish, etc. Pick a label, you can find someone who claims it who is an asshole.
The author claims that this hadith (and you know how I love the hadith) proves that the permissable beating may be very brutal: Sunan Abu Dawud 11.2142 - " Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."
I'm not sure how she gets that. In the first place, it is a part of my admittedly shoddy knowledge of ahadith that Dawud is not one of the books considered to be very reliable. As such, it is hardly every quoted. So the reliability of the hadith is in question, I believe. Secondly, I can't get it to say: 'beat the shit out of your wife if you want to, no one cares' no matter which way I squint at it. Does it seem to make the discipline that goes on in a household a private matter? Yes. Does that mean that, perhaps, a wife's near infidelity won't become public knowledge so that she is not shunned or mistreated by the general populace? Yes. I'm not saying it's a perfect situation. Just that it doesn't say what she thinks it says. At least not that I can figure.
The rest of the verse from the Qur'an states that if the wife, at any point, repents, returns to correct behavior, that the husband is to forgive and forget. He can't keep bringing the incident up, needling about it. It's saying, 'You had a problem. It's solved. Move the hell on.' Good advice, I think.
She also references, but does not quote, another hadith. This from sahih al-Bukhari 7.72.715 - " Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"
Which seems to support the belief that if a woman was being mistreated by her husband she could appeal to one of the wives of Mohammed, who would bring the case before Mohammed himself. I find it likely that the women could also approach Mohammed directly, but in this case the woman seems to have been in the wrong, so maybe she wanted some extra support from Aisha. Who knows.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Amber SMASH
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG
I'm all het up, just for the record. People are filled with stupid. WHY are people so filled with stupid?
Also, I just cut my hand on a packing strap, due to someone else's stupid. It's not bad, just annoying as all hell.
STUPID PEOPLES!
I'm all het up, just for the record. People are filled with stupid. WHY are people so filled with stupid?
Also, I just cut my hand on a packing strap, due to someone else's stupid. It's not bad, just annoying as all hell.
STUPID PEOPLES!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Shopping Haul
My plan for today did not go quite as planned. First, because my Baby Sis wanted to go see Fast Five (which was AWESOME! VROOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!) we had to go to a later showing. Meaning I just ate lunch at home a little early and then went to the gym. I had a yogurt with me for after the workout. My plan, following the gym, was to run to Target to get a new pair of sunglasses, then get to the mall, get a hair cut and spend some time shopping. I got the sunglasses and some jewellry and headed to the mall. Unfortunately there was a 45 minute wait at the salon which didn't give me enough time to get the haircut and meet my friends for the movie. I went shopping instead and picked up two pairs of shoes, both of which are a size 9 - a whole size smaller than what I usually wear. Lo, my feet really have shrunk. It's still, as are all things clothing related, dependent of manufacturer, but there you have it. Neener.
I went to Macy's but didn't find anything I liked. I shop on the sale racks. I cannot, CANNOT, comprehend spending $50 dollars on a top. It's insane. Only in emergencies will I buy things full price. I found a top I liked, but it didn't look good on me. Too big. There was a dress, a size 16 that I liked and that FIT (hot damn) but when I put it on it wasn't flattering. So I didn't get that, but there was the thrill of fitting into a size 16 dress. YAY!
So here's the pic of what I bought. There're three pairs of earrings and a necklace.
I went to Macy's but didn't find anything I liked. I shop on the sale racks. I cannot, CANNOT, comprehend spending $50 dollars on a top. It's insane. Only in emergencies will I buy things full price. I found a top I liked, but it didn't look good on me. Too big. There was a dress, a size 16 that I liked and that FIT (hot damn) but when I put it on it wasn't flattering. So I didn't get that, but there was the thrill of fitting into a size 16 dress. YAY!
So here's the pic of what I bought. There're three pairs of earrings and a necklace.
Fast Five
Dominic Toretto is the fist of God. I just thought you should know that.
Brian still the prettiest though.
And yes, they are stilleyefucking.
Prove me wrong. You can't.
Brian still the prettiest though.
And yes, they are still
Prove me wrong. You can't.
VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 4
The Responsibility of a Wife.
We start with part of surah an-Nisa 4:34 (I'm giving you the whole verse, of course): " 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 ye 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)."
She quotes only the part about righteous women being devoutly obedient and guarding what Allah would have them guard. But let's look at the whole thing, barring the last sentence because that gets its own section in the book so we can talk about it then.
As to the beginning. "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." I can feel some peoples' hackles going up. Mine used to go up too, honestly. 'Men are not stronger than women! If God made us equal, how can this be? Does God like men more?' *waves* It is true that there are women who are physically stronger than men. I can personally lift more weight and probably kick the butts of a good portion of the men I know. But that's now, in modern times. Back in the day women didn't lift weights or do cardio. I'm not saying they were weak, because life was harsh and most women didn't lay around on pillows and eat dates. They were busy running the house, feeding their family, getting water, walking long distances. They weren't weak, but there wasn't anything like 'strength training'. They weren't even usually allowed to fight. So the men got all of the battle training. It was just the division of labor back then. Men tend to be, in the general sense, physically stronger than women. And our bodies are made in slightly different ways on top of that. The same methods of work, of training the body, don't produce the same results across the board. Women have to work harder to get and stay fit, in general.
So men are the protectors of women because they are the stronger sex. Okay. I've got no real argument with that. It is, unless you start nitpicking it, a true statement. What about the 'maintainers' part? The Qur'an puts the responsibility on men to pay for the household. They're responsible for all the bills - food, clothing, heat, a/c, electric, cable, internet. Well, okay. Not those specific things at the time of the revelation, but just to give you the picture. The men had to pay for, or otherwise provide, *everything*. Women didn't contribute financially to the household at all. They could make their own money, if they had a trade, and it was theirs to keep. They didn't have to hand it over or throw it in the common pot. Other cultures at the same time either didn't allow women to work at all, or what they made became the property of their husband/father/male guardian. Nowadays, just because of the way of the world, the economy in most places, women have to work to help support the house. Things change. But then again, there are plenty of households who function on one income. So it's all a matter of what you believe and what is most important to you. I for one would love to be a stay at home wife/mother at some point. However, I also like my luxuries. I would not be happy without the internet or tv! :)
I view this as stating some basic facts that are extremely relevant to the time and place at which they were revealed. But what about the section that the author quotes? Who is the wife to be devoutly obedient to? Her husband? That seems to be the tack that the author takes. It's not what I was taught. I was taught that the wife is to be devoutly obedient to Allah. That's one of the things, a main point of Islam. Each individual person is responsible for themselves, to Allah alone. So the phrase isn't saying that the wife must obey her husband as though her were God. That would be...not shirk, I don't think, but close probably. Raising someone up on that high a pedestal. So the wife must be obedient and observant of the commandments of Allah. That's all that is saying. Then 'guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.' What does that mean? I was taught that it was just a reminder to the women of their responsibilities toward Allah in relation to their husbands. Just because their husband is absent doesn't mean that the wife can suddenly start having over people (men) that might give rise to the rumours of impropriety. It might seem extreme to us, but it was the culture of the time and it wasn't limited to Arabia or Muslims. It was everywhere. Even now I can tell you that a man and a woman going off together makes the rumours start.
At my own work there is a married man who is friendly with an unmarried woman. They eat together all the time, go out all the time, without his wife or her fiance. You think people don't speculate that their having an affair? It's a nearly automatic assumption. There is also the connotation of the wife guarding the husbands property while he is gone. Taking care of the house and everything in it while the husband is off earning their living. Would you expect anything different in modern times? The wife letting strangers come and giving them all the furniture, maybe? Or selling things off? I think the idea is that the wife is to maintain the household in her husbands absence just as she would if he were standing beside her. Otherwise, she is doing what she does not for the right reason - because it is her part of the marriage, making it a way of being obedient to Allah, (not to say that taking care of the house is the only thing women are meant to do. Just that marriage is a partnership and each individual has their jobs to do, and each marriage is different in that respect. Division of labor.) but because of more earthly reasons. It shows a lack of care and love for the relationship.
The cap on this section is this quote from the author: "If a woman in Islam wishes to be considered righteous and to be found worthy of paradise, she must fulfill the duties that have been given to her as a wife...for though she is a believer, according to Islam, if she is ungrateful to her husband, she will not go to paradise but to hell."
This refers to an hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.2.28 -
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."
I tend to avoid the hadith because I don't really get them. I distrust them, because I don't understand how to tell the good ones from the bad. Meaning the ones that are viewed as authentic vs. the ones that are viewed as questionable. But I'll say briefly how this reads to me. I don't see it saying that women are going to hell just because they are women. It doesn't even read that women cannot complain or question their husbands without going to hell. It's about women who have been treated well - whose husbands have fulfilled all their duties to their wives and the wives are still nasty and ungrateful. Harpies, we call them. Shrews. It's less about the specifics of them maligning and mistreating their husbands than it is about that behaviour highlighting a character flaw in those women. If they're that nasty to someone who treats them well then they're probably the worst back biting, gossipy, mean and nasty women out there. This is more a call for these women to change their ways. An early warning, as it were.
In addition, it is my understanding that hell, in Islam, is not a permanent state of being for the majority of people. It's kind of treated like purgatory. People go to hell to pay for the sins that they did not finish 'paying' for in life. But eventually the scales are balanced, or whatever metaphor you like, and they are released from hell and allowed into heaven.
What annoys me about the quote from the author is it reflects a misrepresentation of Islamic theology. No one's salvation depends on another person in Islam. Every individual is responsible for themselves. Do we each have responsibilities that involve others? Yes. But they also have them on us, and ultimately all these responsibilities belong to Allah. But it is up to each individual to fulfill their obligations. They rise or fall based on their deen alone. Unlike, say, Mormonism where the wifes position in the afterlife is dependent on a) being married to a man and b) his position in the afterlife.
We start with part of surah an-Nisa 4:34 (I'm giving you the whole verse, of course): " 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 ye 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)."
She quotes only the part about righteous women being devoutly obedient and guarding what Allah would have them guard. But let's look at the whole thing, barring the last sentence because that gets its own section in the book so we can talk about it then.
As to the beginning. "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." I can feel some peoples' hackles going up. Mine used to go up too, honestly. 'Men are not stronger than women! If God made us equal, how can this be? Does God like men more?' *waves* It is true that there are women who are physically stronger than men. I can personally lift more weight and probably kick the butts of a good portion of the men I know. But that's now, in modern times. Back in the day women didn't lift weights or do cardio. I'm not saying they were weak, because life was harsh and most women didn't lay around on pillows and eat dates. They were busy running the house, feeding their family, getting water, walking long distances. They weren't weak, but there wasn't anything like 'strength training'. They weren't even usually allowed to fight. So the men got all of the battle training. It was just the division of labor back then. Men tend to be, in the general sense, physically stronger than women. And our bodies are made in slightly different ways on top of that. The same methods of work, of training the body, don't produce the same results across the board. Women have to work harder to get and stay fit, in general.
So men are the protectors of women because they are the stronger sex. Okay. I've got no real argument with that. It is, unless you start nitpicking it, a true statement. What about the 'maintainers' part? The Qur'an puts the responsibility on men to pay for the household. They're responsible for all the bills - food, clothing, heat, a/c, electric, cable, internet. Well, okay. Not those specific things at the time of the revelation, but just to give you the picture. The men had to pay for, or otherwise provide, *everything*. Women didn't contribute financially to the household at all. They could make their own money, if they had a trade, and it was theirs to keep. They didn't have to hand it over or throw it in the common pot. Other cultures at the same time either didn't allow women to work at all, or what they made became the property of their husband/father/male guardian. Nowadays, just because of the way of the world, the economy in most places, women have to work to help support the house. Things change. But then again, there are plenty of households who function on one income. So it's all a matter of what you believe and what is most important to you. I for one would love to be a stay at home wife/mother at some point. However, I also like my luxuries. I would not be happy without the internet or tv! :)
I view this as stating some basic facts that are extremely relevant to the time and place at which they were revealed. But what about the section that the author quotes? Who is the wife to be devoutly obedient to? Her husband? That seems to be the tack that the author takes. It's not what I was taught. I was taught that the wife is to be devoutly obedient to Allah. That's one of the things, a main point of Islam. Each individual person is responsible for themselves, to Allah alone. So the phrase isn't saying that the wife must obey her husband as though her were God. That would be...not shirk, I don't think, but close probably. Raising someone up on that high a pedestal. So the wife must be obedient and observant of the commandments of Allah. That's all that is saying. Then 'guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.' What does that mean? I was taught that it was just a reminder to the women of their responsibilities toward Allah in relation to their husbands. Just because their husband is absent doesn't mean that the wife can suddenly start having over people (men) that might give rise to the rumours of impropriety. It might seem extreme to us, but it was the culture of the time and it wasn't limited to Arabia or Muslims. It was everywhere. Even now I can tell you that a man and a woman going off together makes the rumours start.
At my own work there is a married man who is friendly with an unmarried woman. They eat together all the time, go out all the time, without his wife or her fiance. You think people don't speculate that their having an affair? It's a nearly automatic assumption. There is also the connotation of the wife guarding the husbands property while he is gone. Taking care of the house and everything in it while the husband is off earning their living. Would you expect anything different in modern times? The wife letting strangers come and giving them all the furniture, maybe? Or selling things off? I think the idea is that the wife is to maintain the household in her husbands absence just as she would if he were standing beside her. Otherwise, she is doing what she does not for the right reason - because it is her part of the marriage, making it a way of being obedient to Allah, (not to say that taking care of the house is the only thing women are meant to do. Just that marriage is a partnership and each individual has their jobs to do, and each marriage is different in that respect. Division of labor.) but because of more earthly reasons. It shows a lack of care and love for the relationship.
The cap on this section is this quote from the author: "If a woman in Islam wishes to be considered righteous and to be found worthy of paradise, she must fulfill the duties that have been given to her as a wife...for though she is a believer, according to Islam, if she is ungrateful to her husband, she will not go to paradise but to hell."
This refers to an hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.2.28 -
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."
I tend to avoid the hadith because I don't really get them. I distrust them, because I don't understand how to tell the good ones from the bad. Meaning the ones that are viewed as authentic vs. the ones that are viewed as questionable. But I'll say briefly how this reads to me. I don't see it saying that women are going to hell just because they are women. It doesn't even read that women cannot complain or question their husbands without going to hell. It's about women who have been treated well - whose husbands have fulfilled all their duties to their wives and the wives are still nasty and ungrateful. Harpies, we call them. Shrews. It's less about the specifics of them maligning and mistreating their husbands than it is about that behaviour highlighting a character flaw in those women. If they're that nasty to someone who treats them well then they're probably the worst back biting, gossipy, mean and nasty women out there. This is more a call for these women to change their ways. An early warning, as it were.
In addition, it is my understanding that hell, in Islam, is not a permanent state of being for the majority of people. It's kind of treated like purgatory. People go to hell to pay for the sins that they did not finish 'paying' for in life. But eventually the scales are balanced, or whatever metaphor you like, and they are released from hell and allowed into heaven.
What annoys me about the quote from the author is it reflects a misrepresentation of Islamic theology. No one's salvation depends on another person in Islam. Every individual is responsible for themselves. Do we each have responsibilities that involve others? Yes. But they also have them on us, and ultimately all these responsibilities belong to Allah. But it is up to each individual to fulfill their obligations. They rise or fall based on their deen alone. Unlike, say, Mormonism where the wifes position in the afterlife is dependent on a) being married to a man and b) his position in the afterlife.
Michael Rosenbaum
There's this new show on Fox called Breaking In. It's got the kid from Reaper, Bret Harrison. Also, Christian Slater. So I've been watching it. And I'm liking it. It's funny. :)
I didn't say anything at first because I thought his part was just going to be some cameo kind of bits, but Michael Rosenbaum plays one of the main characters boyfriend. And he's been in it pretty much every ep. So, you know. Go. Go watch it.
I didn't say anything at first because I thought his part was just going to be some cameo kind of bits, but Michael Rosenbaum plays one of the main characters boyfriend. And he's been in it pretty much every ep. So, you know. Go. Go watch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
