2,743
edits
Wife Beating in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Reformists
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
===Reformists=== | ===Reformists=== | ||
The Egyptian-American reformist jurist Abou El Fadl argues using {{Quran|4|128}} and the farewell sermon that nushūz refers to sexual betrayal and that striking a wife is limited to that scenario, while the Saudi scholar Abd al-Hamid Abu Sulayman (d. 2021) claimed daraba in Q. 4:34 means to leave, withdraw, abandon her. He acknowledged that this was a break with 1400 years of Islamic tradition.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 271, 277-78</ref> | The Egyptian-American reformist jurist Abou El Fadl argues using {{Quran|4|128}} and the farewell sermon that nushūz refers to sexual betrayal and that striking a wife is limited to that scenario, while the Saudi scholar Abd al-Hamid Abu Sulayman (d. 2021) claimed daraba in Q. 4:34 means to leave, withdraw, abandon her. He acknowledged that this was a break with 1400 years of Islamic tradition.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 271, 277-78</ref> While his interpretation of nushūz may be credible, his untenable interpretation of the Arabic word daraba (beat) as it is used in Q. 4:34 is discussed in the article [[The Meaning of Daraba]]. | ||
In mid 20th century Tunisia at a time of secularization, Ibn Ashur (d. 1975) claimed that Q. 4:34-35 was entirely addressed as an instruction to the court authorities. His view was based on sharia procedural analogy that only rarely can a party in a case act as judge and mete out punishment, as well as general experience that a man could not be trusted to restrain himself in private and will likely transgress limits.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 279-80</ref> Critics would note this as an obviously implausible interpretation of verse 34 since husbands are directly instructed in that verse, most obviously when it tells them to forsake their wives in bed and given that the remedy in the verse is merely for when there is a "fear" of nushūz. | In mid 20th century Tunisia at a time of secularization, Ibn Ashur (d. 1975) claimed that Q. 4:34-35 was entirely addressed as an instruction to the court authorities. His view was based on sharia procedural analogy that only rarely can a party in a case act as judge and mete out punishment, as well as general experience that a man could not be trusted to restrain himself in private and will likely transgress limits.<ref>Jonathan A. C. Brown, ''Misquoting Muhammad'', p. 279-80</ref> Critics would note this as an obviously implausible interpretation of verse 34 since husbands are directly instructed in that verse, most obviously when it tells them to forsake their wives in bed and given that the remedy in the verse is merely for when there is a "fear" of nushūz. | ||