Talk:Islam and domestic violence

We Have a problem

@Koreangauteng: I explained all my reasons and the hadith which your giving do not support domestic abuse one did then the prophet later clarified they are not the best among you. Scholars of islam have gave there views on the matter that is enough you gave richard Spenser as well as a polish institutes views on the matter are not credible one as one of them is a christian apologetic and the hadith about a women having a bruise is not even relevant here firstly the prophet didn't side with the man and the women came to the prophet to complain her husband is impotent not about her being abused and her desire was to return to her ex who divorced her and the marriage was consummated as she claimed he was impotent while the guy said I did satisfy her. The second hadith is false please show the full hadith the prophet didn't hit aisha just because she left the house and there is another hadith from aisha herself that states the prophet never struck a women or a servant.

The hadith in question

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 Messenger (ﷺ) 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 Messenger (ﷺ)! 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 Messenger (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that `AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) 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,"

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/77/42

Aisha said the Messenger of Allah (saws ) never struck a servant or a woman. https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/14

....She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?....https://sunnah.com/urn/221270

The hadith you gave about treating your wife like a sex slave if she is pregnant at the time of marriage is weak (daif) its not credible https://muflihun.com/abudawood/12/2126 so please researcher properly

Arsi786 talk 00:48, 21 February 2020

Along with the recent @Arsi786: unexplained deletions and additions of the article's content as well as the various-Editor-selected-(all Primary???-source)-Hadiths {quoted} - there are potentially many more hadiths which could be quoted in this section === In The Hadith === below is a selection:

"Passages coming from the Hadith maintain the idea of wife beating in the following verses: Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. In a different place, Aisha said: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women”. This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women. In Hadith Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favourite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. According to Abu Dawud (2141) at first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. “Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place”325. Abu Dawud (2126) describes a situation when a Muslim man thinks he is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child. Ishaq/Hisham 969 - requires that a married woman be “put in a separate room and beaten lightly” if she “acts in a sexual manner toward others”. According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related. Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p.525) - Muhammad said: “Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it (...). "

https://kpfu.ru/staff_files/F1555215559/SOCIAL.PROBLEMS.IN.EUROPE..finalis_.3.pdf#page=222

Note the researchers are investigating Social problems in Europe: Dilemmas and possible solutions. They have identified verses in the Hadiths which they consider may contribute. They may be right or they might be wrong, but it remains their findings. This is an Encyclopedia. You are welcome to add content to a possible new section >> Hadith interpretations that do not support domestic violence. [being commentaries on hadiths which explicitly prohibit beatings]

I recommend that the findings of the above examination, and the source from which it comes, is RS Wikipedia content.

I recognize Robert Spencer has been deemed as not a RS.

I recommend all direct Hadith {quotations} should be removed. Koreangauteng (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Koreangauteng: Please look through the above evidence I have provided the proof you have given are not sincere and are vastly different from the hadith's in question Arsi786 talk 01:25, 21 February 2020

Misleading sentence

Mcphurphy inserted All four Sunni schools of jurisprudence institutionalised wife beating as a form of discipline against rebellious wives. But the source says, The source actually says our major Sunni legal schools that “institutionalized” the exegetes’ cosmology by rendering wife-beating a disciplinary means of returning rebellious women to their right place in that cosmology.

Clearly the verb "institutionalize" is not referring to "wife-beating" but to the "exegetes' cosmology". Removing until we can find a neutral way to include this.VR _talk 04:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How about "The discussions in all four Sunni law schools institutionalised the viewpoint of the Quranic exegetes by turning wife-beating into a means of discipline against rebellious wives."

That should accurately represent what the source said: "This argument is supported by references to both exegetical literature on Q. 3:34 (chapter 2), and to discussions in the four major Sunni legal schools that “institutionalized” the exegetes’ cosmology by rendering wife-beating a disciplinary means of returning rebellious women to their right place in that cosmology (chapter 3). " Mcphurphy (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what that sentence is trying to say, and it should be omitted. The sentence is referring to exegetes, but doesn't explain much about it. The source says lots of stuff about Islam and domestic violence and it is not necessary to quote everything it says.VR _talk 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if you are not sure about this then that means you do not have the competency needed to edit about this. So you should not ask for censorship. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA.VR _talk 09:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

POV statement

The following is a POV statement: The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's disobedience (nushuz). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. The Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones. Their only condition is that the beating must not kill her. It is at odds with numerous sources. It is also being taken out of context, where there are two steps of admonishment and abandonment before the hitting. Also removing until this can be included in NPOV way.VR _talk 04:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick google search turned two sources that contradict this. This reliable source points out that the Ottoman-era Hanafis recognized abuse as grounds for ending the marriage, arguing "a true Muslim would not beat his wife, therefore a man who did so was not a true Muslim".

There is also this source, according to which it is not allowed for a husband to injure his wife in Hanafi fiqh.VR _talk 04:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What you call a POV statement is actually a faithful representation of this source [1] describing the position of the Hanafi school. It reads:

According to Hanafi jurists, husbands were required to discipline wifely nushuz; they could discipline their woves physically, and there was a great deal of leeway in the extent and severity of hitting permissible to them. Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their wives in kindness and equity, Hanafi jurists maintained the principle set out by Ahmad b. Ali al-Jassas that there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage, except in the case of death. A husband was permitted to hit his wife without any liability, even if the beating resulted in wounds or broken bones, as long as he did not kill her.

And perhaps you did not notice, but admonishment and abandonment have already been mentioned in my text straight after, just as it is in the source.

Your second source is a modern source, whereas Ayesha Chaudhry has studied the pre-modern Hanafi literature and described the classical Hanafi position. Modern fatwa sites, catering to modern sensibilities, are not an accurate representation of the classical positions.

Your first source says that the Ottoman Hanafi judges allowed divorce in case of beating ""by recognising doctrine from other legal schools." In other words Ottoman judges were taking from and applying the rulings of other law schools, and not from the rulings of their own Hanafi school. Allowing divorce in case of domestic violence is a Maliki allowance, and in the past century or so some Hanafi scholars have borrowed the Maliki ruling in this matter. Since a number of women started "apostatising" because Hanafi law did not grant them the right to seek divorce in case of husband's cruelty. But since the Maliki law did, one Hanafi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanawi borrowed the Maliki ruling and allowed women to seek divorce because of cruelty. See pg. 78 of this source.[2] The Ottoman Hanafis you speak of were doing the same kind of "borrowing." So you should not use Hanafi scholars who borrowed Maliki positions and push that to mean that that was the view of the Hanafi school itself. Mcphurphy (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No its not a faithful representation, it cherryquotes as usual. The source is saying that a husband faces no liability under the law of qisas for injuring his wife. That doesn't mean the husband can't face consequences under other laws. Your quotation not only misses that point, it also misses the point about kindness and equity. It also quotes the source backwards. The author clearly writes about admonishment and abandonment before hitting, yet your text writes about it after hitting. You also seem to not have included the two sources that I cited that both offer a viewpoint different than that of Choudhary. WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be presented.

Finally, borrowing from another school of thought is common Sunni practice. Which is why, having a section on "Hanafi" doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. Scholarly opinions often derive from each other and this happens across schools of thoughts.VR _talk 03:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first four sentences are WP:OR.

Your claim that I am quoting the source backwards is false. Here is how the source worded it:

According to Hanafi jurists, husbands were required to discipline wifely nushuz; they could discipline their wives physically, and there was a great deal of leeway in the extent and severity of hitting permissible to them. Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their wives in kindness and equity, Hanafi jurists maintained the principle set out by Ahmad b. Ali al-Jassas that there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage, except in the case of death. A husband was permitted to hit his wife without any liability, even if the beating resulted in wounds or broken bones, as long as he did not kill her. Within these parameters, Hanafi jurists emphasized the importance of following the three prescriptions of admonishment , abandonment and hitting sequentially, interpreting the "and" (wa) between each prescription as sequential rather than conjuctive

Now compare that to my phrasing. It follows the exact same order.

The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's disobedience (nushuz). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. The Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones. Their only condition is that the beating must not kill her. Within this framework the Hanafis emphasised the need of following the sequence of admonishment, abandonment and hitting.

I have already explained the context behind your other two sources. They are Hanafi scholars borrowing and applying rulings from other law schools. I am happy to include that there are Hanafi scholars who did such "borrowing" as long as the borrowing aspect is emphasised. And if you are going to write about it, then you will also have to write the history of why they borrowed rulings, given on pg.78 of this source.[3] Mcphurphy (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually "As a result, Hanafi legal discussion of a husband’s disciplinary duties followed the three prescriptions in Q 4:34 — admonishment, abandonment, and hitting" comes right before the text you quoted. There is no need to "emphasize" the borrowing aspect when the reliable source itself says that Hanafi scholars recognized abuse as grounds for divorce only "in part by recognizing doctrine from other legal schools".VR _talk 04:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay I have catered to your first concern by shifting text.[4] As for the second part, I think its very important to include the history of why some Hanafi scholars started borrowing. Did you read the source I provided you? Here, I will give you the link again.[5] Mcphurphy (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit still takes that quote of context, not explaining this is Ayesha Chaudhry's view of what the Hanfis believed under the law of qisas (and not necessarily under all laws). It omits her statement Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their

wives in kindness and equity... that precedes the statement. Your wording also makes the steps sound conjunctive rather than sequential, which is the exact opposite of what the author says in that very paragraph.

And we must include contesting viewpoints that I've presented above. Also you do realize that Ottoman jurists predate Ashraf Ali Thanwi, right?VR _talk 09:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Done.[6] Mcphurphy (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So its the mainstream Hanafi viewpoint for around 500 years now. Borrowings and changes in position are not actually uncommon within Islamic schools of thought. For example, Abu Hanifa denied capital/hudud punishment for homosexuality (by rejecting the comparison to adultery and classifying it under tazir) but it later became relatively Orthodox for his school. Likewise Imam Ashari rejected certain Mutazilite points that later became Orthodox for his school as well. While the circumstances should be mentioned, I don't see the need for the heavy emphasis that it is a non-Hanafi borrowing.119.152.137.241 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Thats WP:OR. No source says its the mainstream Hanafi position. In India the Deobandi Hanafis did not change their position until the 1930s. And the Barelwi Hanafis still give fatwa on the basis of the classical Hanafi position. Read their books. Besides, Hanafis still do not have capital punishment for homosexuality. But that is another topic. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the fact is that Islamic scholars and ""Islam"" have viewed Domestic violence and marital rape negatively for quite some time now and the question is whether is borders on criminality or not. Just do a google search on the issue. Now, it's true that many traditional Islamic scholars still equivocate with the three step rebellious wives process or the "light beating with the miswak:", but that's not really comparable to the severe medieval positions of certain early Hanafis. If you're going to make totalizing redflag statements on Islam as a whole things aren't going to progress far. I'll leave it to VR or Rperotron for now. 119.152.137.241 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is right, in that Mcphurphy is not just misrepresenting sources but also representing radical viewpoints in Islam as the mainstream ones.VR _talk 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Source does not support what is written

In the chapter "Incidence among Muslims" it sais at the very top: "Domestic violence is considered to be a problem in Muslim-majority cultures,[52] but because women conceal signs of abuse and don't report domestic abuse to authorities, the incidence in many Muslim-majority countries is uncertain, but believed to be great by Muslim feminists.[53]". The first sentence is supported by the source. The second sentence is not supported by the source (https://web.archive.org/web/20060112080841/http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng).

1. The source covers only Saudi-Arabia, so all statements about "many Muslim-majority countries" although they are probably true, are unsupported.
2. The source does not say anything about "Muslim feminists". It merely refers
3. The source does not say anything about what those supposed feminists believe to be true. The source focuses on the case of Rania al-Baz und connected issues. The only part where supposed feminists might have been addressed is "Women activists, writers, journalists and lawyers called for legal and judicial changes to end such discrimination and combat the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of violence against women.". This is by any means not what this Wikipedia article instanciated.
4. The source sais nothing about "concealing signs of abuse" and not "report[ing] domestic abuse".

Since the article is in a protected state, whoever has the right to edit it, please fix the part of the article as soon as possible. Add a supporting source and/or re-write it in a way that matches the source. Using the term "feminists", which is often used and/or understood in a pejorative way and even if not, implies a bias, is uncalled for, unscientific and misleading. Name who or what actually expressed their belief that the number of incidents is great. The issue is way too important to be this misleading. Readers who check sources or dislike "feminists" are driven to just go to the source, discover that it does not support the statement written in the Wikipedia article and dismiss it as unfactual, stop reading further and walk around high and mighty telling people that domestic abuse is a rare occurence in the realm of Islam. Well done, whoever wrote that introduction. Whoever is willing to help us all out by correcting the part, be assured of my deepest gratitude. --77.8.234.217 (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)