2,743
edits
Wife Beating in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
Professor Jonathan Brown writes that jurists interpreted ''nushuz'' in Q. 4:34 in terms of disobedience: "If a wife exhibited egregious disobedience (''nushuz'') such as uncharacteristically insulting behaviour, leaving the house against the husband's will and without valid excuse or denying her husband sex (without medical grounds), the husband should first admonish her to be conscious of God and proper etiquette. If she did not desists from her behaviour, he should cease sleeping with her in their bed. If she still continued with her ''nushuz'', he should then strike her to teach her the error of her ways." He further says that jurists generally attempted to mitigate the "beat them" command of Q. 4:34: "It became received opinion among Sunni ulama from Iberia to Iran that, though striking one's wife was permitted, other means of discipline and dispute were greatly preferred, more effective and better for the piety of both spouses." The hadith scholar Ibn Hajar (d. 1449 CE) went so far as to place beating wives in the sharia category of "strongly disliked" or "verging on prohibited".<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', London: Oneworld Publications, 2014, p. 276</ref> | Professor Jonathan Brown writes that jurists interpreted ''nushuz'' in Q. 4:34 in terms of disobedience: "If a wife exhibited egregious disobedience (''nushuz'') such as uncharacteristically insulting behaviour, leaving the house against the husband's will and without valid excuse or denying her husband sex (without medical grounds), the husband should first admonish her to be conscious of God and proper etiquette. If she did not desists from her behaviour, he should cease sleeping with her in their bed. If she still continued with her ''nushuz'', he should then strike her to teach her the error of her ways." He further says that jurists generally attempted to mitigate the "beat them" command of Q. 4:34: "It became received opinion among Sunni ulama from Iberia to Iran that, though striking one's wife was permitted, other means of discipline and dispute were greatly preferred, more effective and better for the piety of both spouses." The hadith scholar Ibn Hajar (d. 1449 CE) went so far as to place beating wives in the sharia category of "strongly disliked" or "verging on prohibited".<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', London: Oneworld Publications, 2014, p. 276</ref> | ||
Some others were not uncomfortable and found it natural that God would grant such a right to husbands. For Ibn al-Faras (d. 1201 CE) it was "recommended" and saved the wife from her own irrational impulses. The Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1116 CE) allowed a husband to give his wife up to three lashes with a whip.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'' | Some others were not uncomfortable and found it natural that God would grant such a right to husbands. For Ibn al-Faras (d. 1201 CE) it was "recommended" and saved the wife from her own irrational impulses. The Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1116 CE) allowed a husband to give his wife up to three lashes with a whip.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 280-81</ref> Ayesha Chaudary writes that the Hanafi jurist Ibn al Numan (d. 1457 CE) set a limit of ten lashes.<ref>Ayesha Chaudhry, ''Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition.'', Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 106</ref> Brown says that the Shafi'i school allowed a husband only to strike his wife with his hand or wound up hankerchief, though not a whip or stick, and for the late Shafi'i school wife beating was not recommended. All schools agreed that stiking the face or sensitive areas was prohibited.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 276, 278</ref> | ||
Ayesha Chaudhry explains that unlike Hanafi scholars, who simply adopted the farewell sermon terminology discussed above that men should beat their wives, but without severity (ghayra mubarrihin), Maliki jurists attempted to define more precisely the kind of hitting that was permitted. For them, it should not include punching, nor leave an impression or be fearsome, should not cause fractures nor break bones, nor cause disfiguring wounds.<ref>Ayesha Chaudhry, ''Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition.'', p. 111</ref> | Ayesha Chaudhry explains that unlike Hanafi scholars, who simply adopted the farewell sermon terminology discussed above that men should beat their wives, but without severity (ghayra mubarrihin), Maliki jurists attempted to define more precisely the kind of hitting that was permitted. For them, it should not include punching, nor leave an impression or be fearsome, should not cause fractures nor break bones, nor cause disfiguring wounds.<ref>Ayesha Chaudhry, ''Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition.'', p. 111</ref> | ||
Ayesha Chaudhry in her book, ''Domestic violence and the Islamic tradition'', writes that "Hanafi scholars discouraged public inquiries into men's domestic affairs. Ibn Nujaym cited two prophetic reports to this end. The first states, 'Do not ask a man why he hit his wife'; the second reports that 'Muhammad forbade a woman from complaining against her husband.' Both of these prophetic reports limited a wife's ability to seek legal redress if she was beaten by her husband, adding a level of moral and social taboo against speaking about domestic matters in public."<ref>Ayesha Chaudhry, ''Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition.'', Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 108</ref> Professor Jonathan Brown explains that medieval ulama (scholars) understood the first hadith primarily as part of the etiquette of privacy between men, though this did not outweigh public duties and legal protections.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 277</ref> | Ayesha Chaudhry in her book, ''Domestic violence and the Islamic tradition'', writes that "Hanafi scholars discouraged public inquiries into men's domestic affairs. Ibn Nujaym cited two prophetic reports to this end. The first states, 'Do not ask a man why he hit his wife'; the second reports that 'Muhammad forbade a woman from complaining against her husband.' Both of these prophetic reports limited a wife's ability to seek legal redress if she was beaten by her husband, adding a level of moral and social taboo against speaking about domestic matters in public."<ref>Ayesha Chaudhry, ''Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition.'', Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 108</ref> Professor Jonathan Brown explains that medieval ulama (scholars) understood the first hadith ({{Ibn Majah||3|9|1986}}) primarily as part of the etiquette of privacy between men, though this did not outweigh public duties and legal protections.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 277</ref> | ||
Except for some Malikis, there was agreement that a wife could claim compensation in court for injury. Eventually, all schools except the Hanafi school allowed a judge to disolve the marriage if any physical harm was done to the wife and without forfeiting her dower payment.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 272, 282</ref> | Except for some Malikis, there was agreement that a wife could claim compensation in court for injury. Eventually, all schools except the Hanafi school allowed a judge to disolve the marriage if any physical harm was done to the wife and without forfeiting her dower payment.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 272, 282</ref> | ||