Mohammed Hijab – The Wife Beating Verse Explained

Mohammed Hijab
AI: Summary © The paraphrasing of "The fallacy of the century" used in the fallacy of the 20th century is that present ideas are not true and that the fallacy is used to portray religious values. The discussion touches on the use of "we" and "urance" in relation to men and women, and how they relate to each other. The speaker discusses the issue of women being considered equal and the potential for women to become "med strict" in the future.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:35

In the Bible, and that surprises me when sometimes again, I would never say this in a way to belittle a religious. But when somebody throws these stones out of a glass of hose, right, we say that this doesn't show that the religion is false. Yeah, by the way, I mean, it's not an argument against the religion because all we're doing is from a philosophical perspective, we're using our socially constructed 21st century Western norms. And we're pitting them against the biblical the Quranic or whatever narrative and what that is, is actually constitutes a fallacy called the fallacy of presenteeism. the fallacy of presenteeism is using present ideas of the 21st century narrative to

00:00:35 --> 00:01:12

try and actually disprove other things which are moral based. Well, that's actually anachronistic. In other words, you're using a present idea to superimpose it on a, let's say, a previous society or whatever is, well, that doesn't show that your idea is true, and their idea is false. It just shows that you you have a value judgment as objective as that aesthetic value judgment, which happens to differ from that which existed beforehand. But in any rate, I mean, I anyway, I mean, a lot of these things are misconceptions, like you're mentioning them, of us, in the in the Quran about beating these things. And just to kind of quickly summarize this for us, it's really interesting because

00:01:12 --> 00:01:22

this verse starts off by saying, It's chapter four verse state forces. were in your shoes ohana. ohana. ohana. ohana.

00:01:24 --> 00:01:42

So we're in a Tanaka falletta Hua Hin Sevilla, Allah subhanaw. taala says, If you fail, then who shows IE for your wives in the shows is rebellion. And it can take different forms. Now, the first thing I would say to someone who's asking this question is as follows. Really, I mean, I'll say to someone, let's say for example, is

00:01:43 --> 00:02:27

I'm not gonna say a feminist or someone who's believes in women's rights anyone might say to them, Do you accept? Do you believe that in all cases, in all cases, a man, a husband can never touch a woman against her will? In all cases, absolute? Absolutely. Okay. So she might say, Yeah, I don't believe in any case, it's justified for a woman to touch her husband against his will, to his or her husband, such a wife against her will in any physical way. So So if I'm, what if she is, what if she's killing the child or or endangering the child's health in a dramatic way? And by the way, this is not an anomalous example. Because if you find the NSPCC, which is a British charity, which deals

00:02:27 --> 00:02:41

with children's health and things like that, they actually reported that the majority of fatalities or deaths of children are from from women, because just not because the women are worse than men are more evil than men, or, as the Bible indicates, in Genesis, but it's actually because

00:02:43 --> 00:03:20

women have more interaction time with with the children with their children, generally speaking, as mothers, mothers have more interaction time with their children. So there's actually a real case study, if we see a mother, because we're looking at the philosophical, epistemological roots, if you see a mother of her husband sees his wife abusing the child, is he allowed to intervene physically, physically touching going against? Oh, yeah, the feminists will tell us that you probably. Were not objecting to that. So Fine. So now we have to understand that we've broken the original thing that we've said, because originally we said that absolutely, no. Yeah. There is no case in which a woman

00:03:20 --> 00:03:34

can a man can touch a woman again, so well. So but then the woman will say, Okay, well, but that's it. That's an exceptional circumstance. We say, All right. So you're saying in certain exceptional circumstances, husbands can touch a woman physically against their will.

00:03:35 --> 00:04:10

That's very interesting. So if she's hitting him, she's attacking him in a violent way, which could cause harm because women, despite popular, stereotypical understanding, might be weaker than men physically, but they're not completely incapable of hurting a man. So say, for example, she grabs a weapon or she physically tries to attack him, is he allowed to defend himself and physically touch her against her will in that context? So the say fair minded, feminist will say, okay, he can you can do as much as it needs as as he needs in order to get her off him. So I would say that that is the case. Then we've agreed already, let's say what why is that why have we agreed with so well, the

00:04:10 --> 00:04:54

reason why we've agreed, is actually because this verse is not telling a man how to be up his wife. It's not. In fact, the prophet explicitly told us in a hadith and Timothy, letter, the letter of the Hebrew ma Allah, do not hit the women's sevens of Allah don't hit them. So if anyone says, Okay, well, Islam is normative position is to go and hit the wives to discipline them or something. This is against the Quranic and Islamic or Hadith narrative. This verse is not telling a man how to hit or beat up his wife. This is telling how a man a man or a husband, how to defend himself against his wife. Because the thing is the nature of man is that a man is prone to in a more biological,

00:04:54 --> 00:05:00

predetermined way to kind of aggressive behavior. So this chronic injunction, these three

00:05:00 --> 00:05:12

steps, one abstain from sexual *. And then you can apply data which we can explain later on. I've already explained that a couple of videos of mine, which we don't maybe don't want to discover this, this discussion

00:05:14 --> 00:05:52

then you can do this. Right so so someone with my argument How comes it's not mentioned this word is not mentioned in relation to him, I would say actually is mentioned in relation to him the same word. In chapter four, I think verse 28 128 126 128. It says, went to the Hoffman Valley handle shoes and our other fellow Jenna Holly Valentina Halima, aka sola Habana homosassa five, where it says that if a woman says my husband, no shoes aren't allowed means being neglected. So there's two things, whereas in the verse and 44, there's only one thing that was mentioned, which was new shoes, which is rebellion, here, there are two things are mentioned. Then she can start a reconciliation

00:05:52 --> 00:06:28

with her husband. And she can start over because she actually has a right at any point to go to a party, she has the right to judge, if there's actually any damage done to her, she can get divorce instantaneously, any physical, actual physical damage, we're not talking about, you know, something which is not substantive or something which is not real, or whatever it may be, or he hurt her when he was rolling in the bed when he's sleeping or something like this. No, we're talking about some serious stuff, that at any point, yeah, she could she could actually start a reconciliation project could start a case against him. The question would be made now. So why is it the case that with a

00:06:28 --> 00:07:11

man is mentioned, Donna was mentioned, which is a kind of physical recourse? And it's not mentioned with a woman? The answer is because men are physically more a more prone to violence. So there needed to be some kind of refining, or cap put on what a man's normative or default position would otherwise be anyways. And number two is because if that same injunction was useful for a woman, it would put her in a disadvantaged position because actually, if a woman, you know initiates something physical with a man, and the man responds, in what he would, in many cases perceive as self defense, that she'd be put in a disadvantaged position in which he he can harm her physically. So really, the

00:07:11 --> 00:07:48

Quranic discourse is not one because the Quran the Hadith says, of the prophet in the mindset of Chicago called regenda. Certainly men are equal to women. By the way, the scholars say that this means equal, it means that the twins or whatever but also means equal in them in the settle Chicago project. Generally speaking, we believe in the general equality, but also in situations where we believe that actually a man has a certain right over a woman and the woman stands up sometimes has a certain way over a man like in the custody of children, like his mother's just three times more important than the man like in Mahara, which is a dowry. Like in many cases in divorce, you can

00:07:48 --> 00:08:20

preoccupy the house he lives in for three months is his house, but she has to stay there. There's so many things we can we can actually list that a woman has a right over a man in. And the opposite is also true in Islam. So there are some exceptional circumstances. And by the way, this is not even against Western society because frankly, Western civilization has made exceptions for women of certain things maternity leave the army, there's a drug there's been so many drafts, for men to go to the army. There's no all women draft in the history of America Really? Well. There's been a woman

00:08:21 --> 00:08:39

armies, so there's so many things here we can say. But the point is, in a nutshell, a lot of these misconceptions is because they're approaching the Quran with their lenses, right and if they want to have a genuine understanding of the Quran, they have to understand the Quran from what he's telling us rather than what we're trying to present on it.

Share Page

Related Episodes