That is not the question
The recent CII proposal notwithstanding, when one considers whether it is all right for a person to beat his wife, lightly or otherwise, one has already skipped a fundamental question. This bigger question, if answered, will go a long way toward the solution of this as well as many other subsidiary questions. Before we move on to it though, a review of the background is in order.
To Muslims, the Quran is a book of eternal guidance. The authority of the Quran is something all Muslims agree on. Their interpretation of verses may be different, but there is no Muslim position that doesn’t place the Quran, at least nominally, in the center of the picture. While depending upon the sect and the sub-sect there may be other sources as well, position of the Quran is paramount.
Now the Quran is a unique book. It has philosophy and broad principles, of course. But, it also provides detailed instructions and a penal code. Yet, it’s not an exhaustive penal code. So while all Muslims are agreed that its guidance is timeless, what is actually meant when the above is stated or agreed to can be starkly different depending upon the person. Our fundamental question then is, in which sense the guidance of the Quran is eternal. By way of an answer, the following two positions can be taken:
Position #1: The contents of the Quran (unless explicitly specific to the Prophet) are all timeless and eternal, and hence binding till the Judgment Day. This includes the principles/philosophy and their application alike. To take an example, not only is stealing wrong (principle), but it is incumbent upon the state to cut off the thief’s hand (detailed treatment, also from the Quran).
Position #2: The general guidelines are eternal. The detailed instructions given in the Quran, however, were suited to the time of revelation, while the Muslims are free to come up with applications that suit their times and environments. Stealing will always be wrong but the culprit can be sentenced to imprisonment or subjected to a fine depending upon the laws of the land.
The first position is taken usually by the more devout amongst our friends and is by far the more prevalent one. Subscription to the second position is usually professed in private, although interestingly enough, in practice we take it more often than most people realise; for example, we put the thieves in jail instead of cutting their hands off.
Coming back to the issue at hand, the Quran is very clear in that husbands are ‘a degree above’ their wives (2:228), and that they are ‘maintainers’ or ‘protectors’ of their wives (4:34). Mind you, it’s not men over women; only husbands over wives – many people are guilty of consciously or unconsciously missing the distinction. The modern West, on the other hand, just doesn’t see marriage in this light; and it is unlikely the situation will change any time soon. Even in Pakistan, where many women may accept this degree of advantage on the part of their husbands (let’s call it the principle), very few will accept being beaten. People who take the first position (like the CII) contend that they take their guidance from the Quran, and if somebody doesn’t like it, well it’s too bad. People who subscribe to the second position would contend that a good wife in this day and age, while fully recognizing the status of her husband, will not submit to being put to the stick, even in a token manner. Whatever else may be said about them, both positions have the merit of being logically consistent.
However, I did not like the way many people, most famously Hamza Abbasi, chose to respond to the situation. They were obviously determined not to let go of the first position, but at the same time were very unwilling to sound out of touch with modern times. Their solution (verse 4:34 again): it’s simply a mistranslation. Unfortunately, the ‘correct’ translations that were pressed into service make absolutely no sense. The ‘mistranslation defense’ generally smacks of dishonesty because so often the verses that are supposed to have been mistranslated happen to be just the ones under scrutiny at the time. Good intentions are clearly no substitute for intellectual merits of an argument.
P.S. In debates such as this it will be worthwhile not to lose sight of the fact that Pakistan is home to millions of non Muslims as well.
When discussing Quranic punishments v fail to consider that they r Hadds, or the extreme limit. Umar, RA, held in abeyance the hand cutting during the famine. It doesn't mention the word stoning to death for adultery, just painful death. No punishment exists for imbibing and yet the prophet, pbuh, beat up a drunkard personally, and Umar, RA, legislated a punishment for drunkenness. The Quran, IMHO gives a very wide spectrum of actions for various ills. But our superficial Maulvis and two bit anchors can scarcely interpret the meanings of the subtle kalam.
Important subject and u dealt with it well.
I know it's my fault but I expected something a bit less vague and confusing from "The Universal Message which is without any doubt".
It isn't vague and it is not confusing, Mudassir Bhatti. Unlike the other scriptures it gives leeway to its adherents to deal with problems in a number of ways. The Madrassah trained people learn by rote and stick literally to what they learnt, which includes the tainted ring given to it by the sect of their teacher. When they come of age, the spirit of the Din is replaced by worldliness and v r left to contend with Mullahs like Fazlu who have no qualms of conscience when they give up all principles for the sake of easy but sinful gains. The religions and sects then give a twist to even the most easily understood ayats and injunctions. Follow your own intellect too instead of taking the word of the clergy to b the gospel.
Comments are closed.