Exposing Robert Spencer Part XI: Gender Issues

More gibberish from the world's leading example on how not to be a scholar on Islam. I respond to Spencer 's comments below.

Islamic spokesmen in the West routinely claim that non-Muslims are only suspicious of Muslim intentions out of “ignorance” of the true, peaceful Islam. This, of course, goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it is not Muslims, but non-Muslims (like Geert Wilders in Fitna), who are responsible for linking Islam with violence. This approach deftly shifts the focus away from acts of violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and onto the alleged “Islamophobes” who are supposedly victimizing Muslims by connecting Islam with violence.

Actually, non-Muslims are probably suspicious of Muslims because people like Spencer routinely attempt to connect Islam and violence through the guise of simply reporting on the activities of radicals, while continuously mentioning that such actions and ideology are actually part of pure Islam. If you mean misunderstandings about the faith, such as the garbage you write in this piece, then maybe that qualifies. There's a very simple way to solve the dilemma Spencer is faced with. "Islamophobes" do not simply connect Islam with violence. They are saying that Islam is violent. It's a political movement, as Pat Robertson comments, and one bent on world domination. While it is true that there are Muslims committing crimes and justifying them by using Islamic texts that does not mean that Islam, per se, is violent in of in itself. Those "Islamophobes" then are in fact "victimizing" the great majority of Muslims because they are saying that the Muslims who commit violent actions are simply following "Islam" when in fact those criminals have distorted Islamic teachings to justify their own criminal actions.

An example of this came Friday in The Ranger Online, a publication of San Antonio College and Alamo Community College. An article entitled “Islam teaches respect for women” by Martin R. Herrera reported on a lecture series held on women in the Islamic world:

Meneses and the other two women on the panel, Aurora Deiri and Narjis Pierre, acknowledged conditions for women vary from country to country but they stem largely from the culture that existed prior to Islam’s spread throughout the world and the nuances of varied interpretations of the theology.

Deiri likened it to the subtleties of the many Christian faiths that exist today.

Except for extreme instances of disparity, which Meneses said is becoming more rare, Islam has pushed women’s rights sooner and more significantly than Christianity. “If you ask me if there is any feminism in the Muslim world I say ... it is in the Muslim world,” Pierre said.

Was it Christianity that promoted women's rights in the West? Usually Christianity was used as a means of subordinating women in Christendom (witch hunts, for example) much like slavery was justified through the Bible. I think the analogy is wrong here. Let us ask Mike Huckabee his thoughts on the proper place of a woman, for example.

It is difficult for the Western world to see this, Deiri said, because there is very limited understanding of the Islamic religion.

This ignorance causes people to misinterpret some of the external practices of Muslims that Westerners often cite as oppressive, she said, such as the wearing of head scarves by women.

I don't understand the issue with hijabs and burqas. If a woman freely decides to wear this then there should be no issue. She is free to cover her hair if she wants. If, however, she is forced to cover her head or forced not to cover it (as in Turkey and France, for example) then both sides are wrong. If the woman believes her religion tells her to wear a head scarf then what is the problem? Nuns cover their hair, but no one says they're oppressed. But like I said, if a woman is forced to cover her hair then there's a problem. I'm speaking about the West and most Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is a different story; I'll discuss that some other time.

When asked how Christianity and Islam can be so far apart today when they have so much they share in common ancestry, Deiri replied, “In some instances, ignorance allows you to retain power.”

So any oppression of women in the Islamic world is simply a remnant of pre-Islamic culture, and Islam has been better for women than Christianity. It is doubtful that Deiri mentioned any of this:

The right to inherit, the choice to accept or decline a marriage proposal, to speak out politically, and the right to learn were all included in the Qur'an and in the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him. Now to say that "any oppression of women in the Islamic world is simply a remnant of pre-Islamic culture" is obviously a false claim. Many people use religion to justify their actions - like beating up their wife or blowing people up. A justification is only that, a justification. It does not mean one's justification is in accordance with the facts.

Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223).

This verse has nothing to do with men using women in whatever way they want or that the Qur'an thinks of women as less equal than men. It has to do with sexual relations between man and wife - specifically about positions couples can use when having sex as long as it is vaginal intercourse. The "tilth" reference is a metaphor for the woman's vagina, as Imam al-Qurtabi relates: "The ayat uses the word "harth" (fields) and so this must apply to the vagina, because that entails fertility (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, translated by Aisha Bewley, p. 569). This verse does not mean that a husband can do whatever he wants to his wife, as Spencer portrays it. Nor does it imply that women are just sex slaves for men. From the Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "Your women are a tillage [tilth or field] for you, that is, the place where you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the front part, as, in whichever way, you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from the front or the back: this was revealed in response to the Jews saying that if a person had vaginal intercourse with his wife from behind, the child would be born cross-eyed... " The commentators also say this verse was revealed about Ansari women who were not comfortable with having intercourse in different positions, as Qurayshi men were accustomed to. Qurayshi men who married Ansari women were told through this verse, and all Muslim couples afterward, that having sex in different positions is perfectly fine, as long as it is vaginal intercourse, sodomy being prohibited of course.

This verse has something to do with gender equality though: "If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female, and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them" [4:124]. It is abundantly clear from this verse that the Qur'an looks upon males and females as equals.

The Qur’an also declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).

Dr. Said Ramadan al-Buti says: "The reason for which the Qur'an lays the condition of two women to testify in place of one man in financial case has nothing to do with the woman's femininity as some people imagine. It springs from a basic condition in the testimony itself, represented in the witness's being highly related to the subject to which he testifies no matter whether the testifier be a man or a woman." What this means is that a Muslim woman's testimony is not regarded as reliable if she is not familiar with what is being arranged, but if she is then her testimony is equal to that of a man. Some Muslim scholars went further and said that if the woman was competent and known to be intelligent then her testimony was sufficient without the need to bring another woman. This is not a modern interpretation either, but this opinion was held by notable Muslims scholars like ibn al-Qasim, ibn Taymiyya, and ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as by Imam al-Tabari, the dean of Qur'anic commentators. Spencer's words are nothing more than miserable propaganda.

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).

Yes, a man can marry four women in Islam. So? If a man decides to do so he must treat them all equally in regards to taking care of them financially. Didn't Abraham have two wives? But no Christian gets bent out of shape over that. As far as having "sex with slave girls" this was allowed under Islamic law with conditions, such as the slave women could only be given over to men by the state authority, and it is not as if the men could just treat these women as garbage either. This legal area is essentially a dead letter though.

It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).

That's true. The reason for this supposed inequality is the fact that men under Islamic laws must financially support their spouses and must also pay a dowry for their bride's hand. A Muslim woman is legally free from paying a dowry and is also legally free from having to financially support her spouse and children. All of that is the man's financial responsibility and thus the reason a male is given more money under such circumstances.

Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

It's amazing what happens when you don't use tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) to discuss a verse. I've already addressed this issue in detail here. Spencer either deliberately or mistakenly did not use a commentary when discussing this issue. Translations only lead to the mistaken understanding that Muslim men can "beat up" their wives when in reality they are allowed a light tapping or patting if their wife indulges in inappropriate activities, which was defined by the Prophet Muhammad himself during his final sermon where he told the Muslim men their right over their wives: "And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste." So, can a Muslim man beat up his wife? Absolutely not. The tapping or patting is only allowed when a very, very serious issue like adultery comes up. And that is only after the other means in the verse are taken (admonishing, banishing, etc.). Even this "beating" is only allowed as a rukhsa or dispensation, not as something that is recommended.

I'm sure Spencer owns a copy of the Reliance of the Traveler, the Shafi'i fiqh manual that he routinely brings up. It was written by ibn Naqib al-Misri in the fourteenth century and he described the "beating" as such: "His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family" (Reliance, section m11.0, p. 542). How do you beat someone without injuring them? Obviously the meaning is that some form of physical encouragement is needed only when such a situation between man and wife is on a seriously bad level, and should only be used when a husband believes it will help the situation.

None of that is cultural; nor is it an historical artifact. To take the case of wife-beating, for example, the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic.

Do things like this happen, as the panelists above said, because of pre-Islamic cultural hangovers? No, they happen because Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating. In 1984, Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, who is one of the most respected and influential Islamic clerics in the world, wrote: “If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.” Even the prominent American Muslim leader Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said that “in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife,” and has explicitly invoked Islam in support of this view: “The Koran is very clear on this issue.”

There's no doubt that there is a serious problem all over the world with domestic abuse, not just in Muslim majority countries. Nearly a third of American women report domestic abuse, so this is a worldwide problem and not one relegated to the Islamic world. Does Robert have proof that domestic abuse occurs in the Islamic world because "Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating?" No one is exhorting Bob in Texas to beat his girlfriend based on Qur'an 4:34, but it's happening in the United States, and at a very high level. And Robert, please quote all of what Siddiqi had to say on the topic because it's very disingenuous of you to cherry pick his comments to suit your agenda when he clearly stated that "The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush." Like I said, use a tafsir.

Reporting on this, or on how women still suffer from these and other Islamic teachings, a matter of “ignorance.” In fact, paradoxically enough, it is Deiri and others like her who are spreading genuine ignorance by ignoring, denying, and downplaying all this. And indeed, ignorance allows one to retain power -- in light of that precise and apposite statement, it is important to ask: to what end is Deiri retailing these half-truths and distortions? What power are people who do this trying to retain? Will not the only ones who benefit from this ignorance be those who are oppressing women in the Islamic world?

It's more important and relevant to ask to what end are you, Robert Spencer, retailing these half-truths and distortions? Every single verse you mentioned above was distorted in order to make the religion of Islam look as if it is discriminatory and violent against women. Your arguments are beyond pathetic.

It is a mystery as to why Deiri would possibly want to help them – the Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind, but perhaps this is simply a matter of religious loyalty. If so, it is misplaced: the situation of women in Islam will not improve until Muslim women are willing to dare to speak about their plight, rather than to gloss over it and hope no one will notice. Perhaps in this they can follow the example of Muhammad’s wife Aisha, who once admonished him: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.”

That’s the first step toward ending that suffering.

Aisha said this in hyperbole in regards to a dispute between a husband and wife. Spencer should know of the many ahadith that Aisha narrated extolling the virtues of the Prophet since he's been studying Islam independently since 1980. In actuality though, the first step needed by modern Muslims is to look back into classical Islamic texts and reexamine the rulings and thoughts the great Muslim scholars of the past had regarding issues that are now clouded in confusion. In that, I believe, will they find solace and understanding. As for Spencer, the first step he needs to take is towards a basic Qur'an and hadith commentary class. His explanations and analysis of the above cited verses only demonstrates either his ignorance or dishonesty. In either case, he looks like nothing more than your typical missionary. And not a very good one at that.