Violence Against Women Must Stop

Violence Against Women Must Stop: Interpret 4:34 the Way the Prophet Understood It By His Behavior
Laleh Bakhtiar

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Greetings of peace to all of you from Chicago where I will
speak to you about the translation of the Sublime Quran into English
and some of the rights I found that the Quran gives to women as
realities have become myths because of misinterpretation.

In speaking about the English translation of the Quran, let me
first state firmly and clearly that I am not speaking about the Arabic
of the Quran. That is the eternal Word of God revealed to the blessed
Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him. It is
how Muslims have interpreted the Word of God that is at issue and
where ijtihad or strenuous endeavor to reason an issue has to be
applied or tahqiq, as I prefer, reviving the intellectual tradition of
Islam, the proponent being a muhaqqiq – to know by verifying and
realizing the truth and reality of something for oneself.
But let me first explain why I felt a new translation was
necessary. You will notice that none of these reasons have anything
to do with my being a woman but represent the great Islamic
tradition of tahqiq or intellectual endeavor.

Once I embarked upon this task I knew that I would have to
devote all of my time it.
* 7 years: Seclusion in the Community
Left teaching, lecturing, traveling
* Begin with the words? King James version in the 17th century
* Spent years studying classical Arabic grammar
* Arabic Concordance: al-Mu’jim al-Mufaris
* Mac no Arabic; transliterated 90,000 words
* Called formal equivalence
* No interpretation: * Praying behind a wall: personal life of
Imam unclear
* Universal
* Blessed Prophet did not bring a new religion
* Came to confirm what was right in the messages of
previous Prophets
* What does it say to me today: Not what is its history
* If eternal, how can I relate to it today?
* Inclusive
* Quran says: Speak to people in their own language
* Blessed Prophet is a mercy to all of humanity
* Ungrateful instead of Disbeliever or Infidel
* God vs Allah; one who submits vs. muslim; submission
vs. islam
* Thou vs. You. You in bold.
* Consistency * Begin with the words and use same word
as long as context allows
* Created Database * For easy translation into other languages.
This was the case with the King James version of the Bible, a
translation that lasted for 300 years because of the consistency
in translation.
* Recitation marks
* Quran means Recitation. Where reciter takes a breath or
pauses determines the meaning.

Now we come to the point from which the translation became
controversial. Yet you will notice that it is the use of intellectual
endeavor that is relevant, not my gender. If a Muslim jurist had come
up with the same arguments and logical reasoning, the 1400+ year
mistake would be more readily admitted and changed.
Not only is the language of the Sublime Quran translation
inclusive rather than exclusive, this translation also reverts the
translation of 4:34 back to the way the Prophet understood it as
shown to us through his behavior. The part of Chapter 4 verse 34 in
question is more or less read in all present English translations:
“Those husbands who fear disobedience on the part of their wives, first
admonish them, then abandon their sleeping places, then beat them.”
My position is that the understanding of this verse must revert
back to the interpretation given it by the Prophet Muhammad, peace
and the mercy of God be upon him, through his actions. He never
beat anyone much less any of his wives. When there was any marital
discord, he went away.

Anyone who claims to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet must
do the same thing because the Sunnah of the Prophet is not to beat,
hit, hurt, spank, or chastise any woman. The word idribu is a
command, an imperative form of the verb, yet a command the
Prophet did not carry out if it means “beat” but he did carry it out
when it means “go away.” Therefore the Sunnah of the Prophet is
“not to beat.”

The word daraba or its imperative form in verb form I, idribu,
has 25 meanings. Why take a meaning that goes against the legal and
moral principles of the Quran that harms someone when the Prophet
did not do it.

The most conclusive arguments in Islamic tradition to prove or
disprove something is using the Quran to prove another point in the
Quran. This I will do. I will show how the present erroneous
interpretation of idribu creates a contradiction not in the Quran itself.
Two premises: First of all, marriage is encouraged in Islam as a
moral act. The blessed Prophet said: Marriage is half of faith.
Secondly, divorce is discouraged as an immoral act but if necessary,
allowed. The blessed Prophet said: Divorce is deplorable.
Now we get to the heart of the main reason why the word
“beat” is a misinterpretation.

We read in Chapter 2 verse 231: “When you divorce wives, and
they (f) are about to reach their (f) term, then hold them (f) back honorably or
set them (f) free honorably; but hold them (f) not back by injuring them so
that you commit aggression.” In other words, the Quran is telling
husbands not to harm their wives who want to be set free, not to hold
them back by injuring them. The word “injuring” (dirar) also means
hurt, harm, use force or commit aggression.
Let’s take an example. A Muslim wife, after many attempts to
help her husband’s manage his inappropriate anger, anger that most
often is taken out against her, tells her husband that she wants a
divorce. He, in his anger, does not at that moment remember that
according to 2:231 he is not to hold back by injuring a wife who
wants to be set free, and instead, being both judge and jury, beats her
as allowed in 4:34. The battered wife, becoming the victim of his
anger, is then afraid to speak out again as this last instance has
caused her to seek refuge in a shelter for battered women.

Therefore, we see a disconnect between 4:34 and 2:231. Jurists
have created a contradiction that is not in the Quran by encouraging
divorce and discouraging marriage so that we can conclude, a
Muslim woman who wants a divorce must be set free without
injuring, hurting, or using force against her, but a Muslim woman
who wants to remain married does do under the threat of being
beaten! If Muslim wives knew their rights, which one would want to
stay married under such circumstances?

Does this make sense? Is this encouraging marriage? 4:34 as
presently interpreted contradicts 2:231. How can we eliminate this
contradiction? There is a very simple solution: Revert the
interpretation back to how the blessed Prophet understood it through
his behavior, his sira.

It has been a great blessing that the Sublime Quran is the first
translation to use “go away” instead of beat in English translation.
We are told that the word “beat” in this verse (4:34) is a
transitive verb. That means it can only take a direct object. As this
verb is transitive it can only mean “beat.” When it is in its intransitive
form, it means “go away from them,” making them an indirect object.
There are two arguments against this rationalization of an immoral
act.

First of all we have to ask: When this verse was revealed to the
blessed Prophet and he heard the word idribu, that jurists and
commentators have said for over 1400 years means “beat,” did he sit
back and discuss within himself whether the verb that God was
revealing was a transitive or an intransitive one? No! By his behavior,
we know that he understood it to mean “go away from them.”
Otherwise we would have to conclude, God forbid, that the Prophet
did not understand the Quran as well as the later legal jurists do who
make this distinction.

Secondly, we are talking about translation, not about the
original Arabic which is the eternal Word of God. When you translate
from an original text into a target language, you have to go with the
rules of the target language. There are many times when an English
word requires an indirect object whereas the Arabic word does not.
Do you then distort the meaning? No. You go with the target
language.

Since the word “them (f)” is in the verse, in order to use “go
away” in English, you have to say: “Go away from them,” adding the
word “from” which then makes the object indirect. This is why the
jurists say it has to mean “beat them” or “hit them.” However, in
English we could say: “leave them” and we would be following the
grammar of the jurists but perhaps implying more than what the
Prophet understood.

We have to ask ourselves, why did the Prophet not beat his
wives even though it was a command in the Quran? First of all,
when the verse was revealed to him it appears from his behavior in
the same type of situation that he did not consider it to mean “beat
them” referring to hiswives. Itmight possibly be because the Quran
uses three other words for strike or beat, namely in 28:15, 38:41 and
51:29.

In 28:15 Moses struck a young man with is fist. The root letters
are not # r b, which we know also means “to strike,” but w k z.
In the case of 38:44, the command to Job to stomp his foot, the root
letters used are r k # and not # r b which can also mean “to stamp”
or “to stomp.” In 51:29, when Sarah, the wife of Abraham was told
she would have a child, she struck or smote her face on purpose,
the root letters being s k k and not # r b which as has been stated
also means “to strike” or “to smite.” Therefore just as other Arabic
words may mean “to strike,” so the root letters # r b may mean other
than “to strike,” i.e., “to go away” or “to separate.”

Based on his character, a model for all of humanity, he knew
innately that it was wrong to harm another human being. He knew
that according to 16:126 one is commanded to chastise with the same
chastisement that that person has been given. “And if you chastise
(
. . .” (16:126). Or, “And whoever chastises for injustice with the like of
what he was chastised and after that again was to be wronged, God will
certainly help him, truly God is Pardoning, Forgiving” (22:60).
Therefore, conceivably if a husband harms his wife by beating
her, according to 16:126, his wife would be allowed to chastise
her husband in return. The Prophet would have intuitively known
that if a husband were to beat his wife, she would have recourse to
her husband. He clearly believed that it was not within his Sunnah
to do such a thing. Therefore he showed by his behavior that 4:34
and the use of the word #araba means “go away from them” or
“leave them” and let the emotions subside.

Thirdly the Prophet’s respect for the female gender was
legendary. This included not only his wives, the mothers of the
believers, but his daughters as well. He had a very special
relationship with his daughter, Fatima, the only one of his daughters
to survive him. How could he beat his wives and not consider that
someone might beat one of his beloved daughters.
Fourthly the Prophet knew thatmarriage was based onmutual
respect and love. The Quran often tells husbands and wives to
consult on issues with each other. It would be unfair and unjust to
think that God would have revealed a verse that allowed husbands
to beat their wives instead of separating for a short period of time
and allowing the anger to subside. Then they would be able to once
again consult with one another.

Therefore anyone who claims to follow the Sunnah of the
Prophet must do the same thing because the Sunnah of the Prophet
is not to beat, hit, hurt, spank, or chastise any woman. The word
i#rib is a command, an imperative formof the verb, yet a command
the Prophet did not carry out if it means “beat them.” However he
did carry it out when it means “go away from them.”

What jurists claim is that the “beating” is only given to a wife
whose “nushuz” the husband fears. The jurists explain “nushuz” as
“disobedience” whereas I see the word to mean “resistance.”
As a matter of fact, nushuz does not mean “obedience” as that is
a completely different word in the Quran, a%[
nushuz, we see while in 4:34 the Quran says: “husbands who fear
resistance on the part of their wives,” in 4:128 the Quran says: wives who
fear “resistance” or nushuz on the part of their husbands. In truly a fair
and just fashion as the Quran always is, however we translate the
word in regard to a wife, must be translated and interpreted the same
for a husband. If nushuz is interpreted as meaning disobedient then it
must apply in both cases, a disobedient wife and/or a disobedient
husband.

Another example from the Quran as to why the word idribu in
4:34 does not mean to beat. According to 24:6-9, if a husband accuses
his wife of adultery without any witnesses except himself, the
husband swears an oath by God four times that he is one who is
sincere. He then swears a fifth oath that the curse of God’s be on him
if he is one who lies. The wife does the same thing. She swears by
God four times that he is one who lies. The wife then swears a fifth
oath that the anger of God be upon her if he be one who is sincere.
With this 5th oath on the part of a wife, all punishment is driven away
from her. God and humanity accepts her word and so must the
jurists. It is over!

And notice the fine nuance in the Quranic language between
what the husband must swear an oath to: the curse of God be upon
him if he lies and yet the wife must swear an oath that the anger of
God be upon her if her husband is sincere. This shows the great
respect God, his revelation through the blessed Prophet and the
Quran has for womanhood.

Example: Now let us imagine the same situation as we did with
4:34. Before a wife has a chance to take advantage of her right given
in the Quran in 24:6-9, her husband accuses her of adultery without
witnesses other than himself and beats her. She becomes a victim,
perhaps ending up in a shelter. Now, a victim, she no longer has the
will to defend herself and instead assumes that she is in the wrong
and deserves to be beaten even when she has done nothing wrong.
Thus wrongly interpreting idrib to mean “beat” instead of “go
away” or “leave” has turned at least two realities that the Quran has
given women into myths. The reality that a husband who wants to
divorce his wife cannot hold her back by injuring her protects a wife
who wants to be set free. This is a right she is given in the Quran—
not to be injured! When idrib is interpreted as beat, this reality
becomes a myth as the example has shown.

It is reality that 24:6-9 allows a wife who is accused of adultery
by her husband without any witnesses other than himself to defend
herself against the accusation and God and humanity accepts her
defense but because of misinterpretation of 4:34, because of not
following the Sira and behavior of the Prophet, the best model for
humanity, a reality is turned into a myth for a wife.

In addition, in both cases of the use of the word idribu
interpreted as meaning beat, Muslim translators and interpreters are
commanding to munkar and prohibiting ma’ruf, commanding to
immorality and prohibiting morality, the definition of a hypocrite in
9:67. They are making asking for a divorce to be preferred because
she cannot be harmed over remaining married because remaining
married is under the threat of being beaten.

I have been asked: How can you go against the tradition and
over 1400 years of commentary? My response: If we study Islamic
history, after the time of the Rushidin, the 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs,
we Muslims have had 1400 years of almost uninterrupted rulership
by tyrants and dictators with the exception of a few years of a pious
ruler.

Does that mean that we cannot go against tradition and
demand pious, benevolent rulers? No. Of course not. The response is
that the minute that each individual member of the ummah gains
consciousness of a wrong being done in the name of God, in the
name of Islam, he or she has the responsibility to speak out.
What might help Muslim women become more self confident?
In terms of traditional psychology, each person is created with
a feminine principle called the carnal or animal soul, the passions
(nafs ammarah), and the masculine principle called ability to reason
(nafs natiq). Culturally women came to symbolize the carnal soul
while men symbolize reason so that by controlling woman as carnal
soul on the outside, men would control themselves.

The exception to this understanding exists in an Islamic way of
life known as “spiritual integrity” (futuwwah) and “moral
reasonableness” (muruwwah). In the view of this Islamic school of
thought and action, each human being contains both a carnal soul
and the ability to reason within themselves. It is up to each
individual, male or female, to struggle with their own carnal soul to
reach toward a stage of moral healing.

Such a person is known as a spiritual advocate (fata for the male
in Arabic and fatat for the female in Arabic or javanmard for either sex
in Turkish, Urdu and Persian). This is the Islamic school of thought
that I follow.

What does this entail? It requires that one consciously
undertake the greater struggle with the self or the ego (jihad al-akbar);
that one struggles at each instance of a behavior that reflects the “me”
within instead of centering on “others.” This is a great deal for the
ego to have to give up and it offers resistance every step of the way.
This struggle is a significant one because it reinforces those
values which the model human being—Muhammad (peace and the
mercy of God be upon him)— manifested. That is, when reason
succeeds in attracting the heart towards itself, the self gains control
and mastery over the passions—in appropriate lust and anger.
Gaining mastery, the self can then process values to which it has been
guided by revelation and turn away from the disvalues which
guidance through revelation has discredited.

Such misguidance and disvalues are interpreting idrib in 4:23 as
“beat them” instead of the meaning the exact same word has “go
away from them,” or “leave them.”

The response of the world should provide a Muslim woman
with a sense of reflection so that she can look at her surroundings
with a critical eye as an intellectual would do. As a member of a
group of believing women, fellow travelers at this sensitive juncture
of time, her thoughts, ideologies, and spiritual beliefs could come to
govern human society today. This is a role which believing women,
as a group, have never played in a significant way throughout the
entire history of humanity but it is a role which her way of life offers
to her with open arms.

What is important is to develop social growth among the
Muslim women themselves, in particular, and in the ummah as a
whole. To stand against the injustice of allowing a husband to act as
judge and jury to beat his so-called “guilty” wife rather than his
“innocent-until-proven-guilty“ wife, beaten before she has a chance
to give her side.

Historically it has been shown that until the people, in general,
and this, of course, applies to women, in particular, are not awakened
and until they not find a social conscience, the journey will end in
stagnation, in staying or remaining at one stopping place. It has
rightly been said: Do not show people the way and determine their
duty and responsibility as jurists and the men and women they
influence in the Islamic world do, but rather give them insight as the
Islamic world also gives as a hidden treasure, as a tool to use to gain
consciousness of themselves, their beliefs and their surroundings and
they will find the way themselves; they will recognize their duty.
Insight and intuition come in many forms. Understanding the
meaning of the Quran is one of them, one way for Muslim men and
women to self-identify with the Quran, to see it as the wisest of
teachers.

It is valid for a woman to lead the formal prayer!

While edition Aisha Bewley translation of Ibn Arabi’s Futuhat al-makkiyya, “The Mysteries of Formal Prayer,” Paragraphs 593-595 I learned that Ibn Arabi has ruled that a woman can lead the formal prayer! Here is what the section says:

24.5.2. The Interpretation of the Leadership [of the Formal Prayer] of a Woman
The interpretation in that is that the Messenger of God testified that some women are perfect as he testified that some men are perfect, even if there are more perfect men than women. This is prophethood and prophethood is leadership, so it is valid for a woman to be a leader of the formal prayer. The basic root is to permit her to act as a leader. Whoever forbids that without any proof should not be listened to. The one who forbids that has no text. His proof of that includes something else and is shared. Therefore, the proof falls away and the basic root of allowing her to be a leader remains. (593)
Know that man is a world in himself and is multiple in respect of meaning, even if he is small in volume. For this reason, He says: “You only we worship” with the nun of the plural. He made his limbs and outward and inward faculties follow what rules them and is ahead of them. That is the intellect, the self and passion. Each of them can act as a leader to the group at any one time. All acts of obedience are close to the intellect. Permitted actions are close to the self. Acts of opposition are close to passion. (594)
The intellect is told: “When your self is fed up with following you in immediate matters and imitating you when you are the leader and it advances in permitted matters and becomes your leader, then follow it and pray behind it in order to guard it so that passion will not deceive it. If passion follows it in that state, it might pull it into the forbidden.” In places like this, the leadership of the self is permitted. This is the leadership of a woman. The leadership of the intellect is in the position of the Muslim man who is adult, has knowledge, and is legitimate. The leadership of passion is in the position of the leadership of the hypocrite, unbeliever and impious. The leadership of the self is in the position of the leadership of women. (595)

With Israel’s Military Operation in Gaza Continuing Unabated

By Rochelle Jones

AWID: Israel’s attacks on Gaza have taken a heavy toll. What is your understanding and analysis of the situation at the moment?

Islah Jad (IJ): The war situation in Gaza is another episode of a long series of wars and violence against the Palestinian people since their collective expulsion from their homes in 1948 to create and establish the state of Israel to solve what the Zionist Movement called the ‘Jewish problem’. Zionists saw that the solution for the persecution of Jews in Europe is to establish a Jewish Homeland and a state later on, on Palestinian land. This led to the expulsion of more than one million Palestinians now dispersed all over the globe. In Gaza, the majority of the population are refugees from villages and cities now inside Israel and close to Gaza (Majdal, Askalan, Ramleh etc).

Gazans endured and are still enduring non stop wars that started by their expulsion in 1948 when Israeli planes were attacking refugees in their march to find a secure place to stay; followed by the formation of bridage 101 headed at that time by the young officer Ariel Sharon who launched a non stop war against Gaza refugees in 1951; then the attack on Gaza of 1956; then the 1967 war that put Gaza under the Israeli control after it was under the Egyptian administration. Between 1970-1971, Sharon launched another war on Palestinian refugee camps to root out some Palestinian militants through which he demolished hundreds of poor houses in the refugee camps to make roads for the Israeli tanks. In 1987, the Palestinian uprising took place – starting from Gaza – and the West Bank followed.

Since then, Gazans have been under continuous Israeli attack, siege and oppression. The situation aggravated after the second legislative election in January 2006 when the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) was pressured by the Palestinian authorities and the Americans to join the elections. Hamas made a terrible mistake by winning the elections – they won more than 70% of Parliament seats and were heavily supported by the voters for their clean hand and for their national and political agenda. Since then, the Israelis have imposed siege on all Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian Authorities, seen as ‘moderates’ and supported by the Americans and some Arab regimes such as Egypt, persecuted Hamas and their supporters by closing down their offices, newspapers and journals. In addition, large numbers of their members and supporters were put in Palestinian jails and some of their leaders were assassinated by Israelis.

In June 2007, Hamas in Gaza took power when the Americans and Israelis refused a national unity government with Hamas and the persecution intensified against the movement. Since the take over of power by Hamas, a draconian siege was imposed on Gaza by Israel and Egypt. A conflict errupted when Israel kept targeting Hamas leaders and members by its policy of assassination. Egypt brokered a ‘ceasefire’ according to which Hamas stops firing locally made rockets against Israel and Israel stops its aggression and opens the borders to allow food, supplies, electricity, water and fuel to Gaza. Israel never respected the truce and kept intensifying its siege. Israel was killing Gazans slowly and continued attacking and killing Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank which led to the Hamas government in Gaza to stop the truce and resume its rockets against Israel. On December 27, 2008, Israel launched a total war against Gazans to destroy all infrastructure and displace thousands of families on the Rafah border (with Egypt).

The war is then just another episode in a long series of wars as part of an Israeli systematic policy to rid the Palestinians of their land and expel them to enlarge the pure Jewish state It is just another round of a continuous colonial policy to get rid of the Palestinian natives and control the land of Palestine.

AWID: How has it impacted you personally?

IJ: The lack of security affects every Palestinian. Me personally – I had to give birth to my youngest daughter before my due time because the Israeli Military Government refused to renew my visa in Ramallah, West Bank. That was in 1982 when the West Bank was under direct Israeli military rule. I was suffering from pre-eclampsia when the Military governor forced me to leave the country to renew my papers.

My university, Bir Zeit, where I teach has been closed by Israeli military orders more than 14 times, and it was closed completely for four years from 1988 to 1992. Many of our students were killed by the Israeli forces; many are in the Israeli jails. We have lots of difficulty to import books to our university – they have to be left in Israeli ports for months before reaching us; we have to pay high taxes to get our books and lab materials Since 1998 I can no longer conduct research in the Gaza Strip – we have to communicate via video conference or phones. The University lost all students coming from Gaza.

I have some graduate students from Gaza who are registered in the MA program on Gender and Development but could not finish their studies because they cannot reach the Women’s Studies Institute I am directing. Since 1992 I cannot reach the Arab part of Jerusalem which is the second holy place for all Muslims around the world. Jerusalem is an important health, education, commercial and religious centre for all Palestinians. I cannot reach Nablus south of Ramallah or Jenine without waiting for hours on the more than 700 Israeli checkpoints that separate all Palestinian cities from one another and all Palestinian villages from one another and from cities too.

AWID: How are Palestinian women in Gaza being impacted by the current crisis?

IJ: Palestinian women in Gaza are devastated by all measures. All of what we see on TV screens is weeping women over the coffins of their beloved children. Women in Gaza have no water, electricity, food, medicine, heat, fuel or shelter since the beginning of the war on Gaza on Dec 27th. Women have to fetch water, wood, food and shelter for their families. Many women are seen digging through the rubble of their destroyed homes to look for their buried children. Two mothers were killed and their young kids were hanging to their bodies for four days with no food or water until the Red Cross reached their home.

Whole families have been exterminated by Israeli artillery from air, sea and ground. The example of the Samouni family is just one case. The Samouni family work on their agricultural land at the outskirts of Gaza – it is a big extended family. The Israeli army asked the family last week to stay together in one house. More than 160 gathered together, and once they were all settled in one house the army opened fire, killing instantly 30 people – mostly women and children.

Tens of houses have been destroyed on their inhabitant’s heads. Many families moved to empty schools run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), but the Israeli artillery followed them in their new refuge and killed, in one example 42 Palestinians – again mostly women and children. This led the UNRWA director in Gaza to ask for an international investigation to document the so many war crimes committed against the civilians in Gaza.

AWID: Is there any solidarity and action coming from Israeli women’s rights activists?

Up to the moment of writing of this text, the war on Gaza is approved by 91% of the Israeli public. A few Israeli organizations are making efforts to stand by the Palestinians, in particular Physicians for Human Rights. Israeli women’s organisations at large did not move a finger to denounce the war crimes committed by their army and government against the Palestinian women and children. To this moment 930 Palestinians have been killed – 292 of them are children (32%) and 75 women (8.2%). However, no Israeli organisations for women or children have taken a clear cut position against this crazy war.

In such situations the brunt of the war and re-organisation of the social fabric is left to women. Again, Palestinian women will be busy making ends meet with the rising level of poverty and unemployment. All the dreams about law reform, strategic gender needs and mainstreaming gender… all will be on the shelves for years to come.

AWID: I have read about a planned demonstration in Israel against the Gaza operation organised by a collective of Israeli women’s organisations [1]. Do you know if this took place?

IJ: As far as I know the only big demonstration in Israel was initiated by Palestinians inside Israel. If the mentioned demonstration will take place, we are talking about a late initiative that allowed a criminal war to go on for about 20 days now during which all sorts of destruction has been inflicted on Palestinian civilians. In all cases, it is very good to hear about this initiative and good to see some women are approaching Livni to change her mind. I do hope that these small groups and weak voices inside Israel will have the chance to develop their power and make their voices heard among the Israeli public, after all, the Israeli soldiers who kill Palestinians with cold blood are the sons of mothers and husbands of wives etc… I would like to hear a call from all of these women to urge their men to stop killing and refuse executing orders.

AWID: Palestinian women have been demonstrating in Gaza – what impact have these brave demonstrations had – and do you know of any other strategies women are using to mobilise and raise their voices against the violence?

IJ: Many women in Gaza have risked their lives to save the besieged ‘targeted’ groups in Gaza. Women, through their mass mobilization, managed to save many houses from being demolished by Israeli artillery. Women are mobilized to provide vital emergency services for women in Gaza, women are also active in the media and mass communication to make their voices heard against this war.

AWID: This protracted conflict seems to never end. So many strategies have been employed in the past to bring about peace – what do you think is the right path?

IJ: Very simple. More than 15 security council resolutions have been issued since 1948 to solve all aspects of the Palestinian cause that include the status of Jerusalem, borders, land, refugees, water and natural resources and a state for the Palestinians. None of these resolutions have been implemented including the last one – number 1860 – that was issued on January 8, 2009, asking for an immediate ceasefire. To this moment the killing is business as usual because Israel has never abided by any UN resolution and has never been punished for not implementing any of these resolutions. It is about time to sanction and boycott the state of Israel to force this state to abide by the UN resolutions and the international community. Boycott Israeli academics, artists, sports clubs and individuals, products and visitors.

* Islah Jad is a Ph.D holder from SOAS (School of African and Asian Studies), University of London, she lectures on gender and politics in the Women’s Studies Institute and Cultural Studies Department, Bir Zeit University, Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine.

[1] See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129153 for the full article about the proposed demonstration.

Acid Thrown on Muslim Woman who Demands Retribution

An interesting debate began between a friend and Aishah Schwartz. It would be great for any of you out there to weigh in. After reading the following story, tell us how YOU think justice should be served in this case.

Tehran journalist Asieh Amini, who writes about human rights and opposes the sentence, said protest has been muted because people have been moved by Bahrami’s story. “It’s hard not to get emotional over what has happened to her,” Amini said. (Continued here: http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=29826)

JUSTICE SERVED? ‘Woman Blinded by Spurned Man Invokes Islamic Retribution’

The friend said: OK, so this is really interesting, yet at the same time, I am not sure what to think. I, like many here in the US, struggle with the death penalty. I think it’s more punishment to sit in jail for the rest of your life to think about what you’ve done, than to get the “easy out,” if you will. However, if this sentence is carried out, will it really bring retribution to not only this Muslim woman but to all women? Must a punishment such as this occur for men to understand that they cannot get away with this kind of violence anymore? If acid attacks against women keep going unpunished, then men will continue to do it -however, to give the same punishment back (albeit partial, compared to what this woman suffered)…I just don’t know.

AISHAH SCHWARTZ ADDED:

Yes, indeed, the case and the verdict are interesting.

I am aware that Muslims are taught that God is with the righteous; and that, from a Christian perspective, according to a verse in the Bible stating, roughly, that “‘Vengeance is mine,’ sayeth the Lord.”

However, it is also said, “Two ‘wrongs’ don’t [necessarily] make a ‘right’.”

That said there is the issue of: “With little left to lose, Bahrami took the unusual step of asking the court for qisas, or eye-for-an-eye retribution as allowed under Islamic law. Courts usually order families of the accused to pay ‘blood money’ for the crimes.”

So, under what the article refers to as Islamic Law, the world would be led to understand that Bahrami has the right to demand ‘eye-for-an-eye’ retribution or to receive ‘blood money’ – for her loss [pain and suffering] – yet, Islam also teaches that we are to be patient in enduring suffering, that our reward is with God.

Islam also teaches that God is ‘oft-forgiving’ – ‘most merciful’ [etc.], and that we are to do our best to also extend forgiveness and mercy toward others.

So, from one perspective, the world perceives Islamic teachings as barbaric, something the media purports at every opportunity, while on the flip-side Muslims want the world to believe that Islam is peace, mercy, etc. and we struggle at every opportunity to advance that concept by attempting to counter the negative with positive.

At the same time, it cannot be denied that, for example, in Saudi Arabia, because of corporal punishment, crime rates are significantly lower than in other parts of the world, yet, in the very same country, there are also a shockingly barbaric examples of the unequal/archaic treatment of the very women that Islam teaches are to be honored and treated equally or even with reverence (i.e., “Paradise is at the feet of your mother”). (Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and Indonesia are three other predominantly Muslim countries ranked as having among the lowest crime rates in the world.)

So how do we find a balance? Can we have it ‘both’ ways and expect the world to view Islam as the ‘religion of peace’ at the same time?

From a personal (or perhaps expressed as emotional) point of view, someone who believes he has done nothing wrong is certainly not going to ’suffer’ as he ‘rots’ his proverbial life away in a prison – if Islamic law mandates the victim’s request – let the execution of the sentence commence.

How dare the perpetrator of this horrific crime attempt to diminish the victim’s suffering or the act made against her by suggesting faked blindness!

Again, on the other hand, the article describes the victim as having ‘little left to lose’ – an undeniably legitimate argument – however, what, exactly is it that we expect to carry with us from this dunya into the next life? Where do we expect to earn the greater reward for our deeds or suffering?

In this life or the hereafter?