In a refreshing instance of Europeans declining to bow down to the idol of multiculturalism, "an imam was sentenced to prison in Spain on Wednesday for inciting violence against women in a 1997 book that gave detailed instructions to Muslim men on how to beat their wives, judicial officials said." This from AFP, with thanks to Nicolei.
I wrote about this book in Islam Unveiled. What this article doesn't tell you is that this imam was simply explicating the Qur'an's Sura 4:34: "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."
Says the article: "Mohammed Kamal Mustafa, 44, who has been the imam of Fuengirola in the southern Costa del Sol region for the past 12 years, was convicted of 'inciting violence on the basis of gender' by a court in Barcelona.
"In a book entitled 'Women in Islam', Mustafa discussed the 'restraints imposed' by Islam 'concerning the physical punishment' of women. 'The beatings must be administered to specific parts of the body, such as the feet and hands, using a stick that is not too big so as not to leave scars and bruises,' he wrote."
As I explain in Islam Unveiled, this kind of exegesis of Sura 4:34 is quite common in the Islamic world. If Mustafa had published his book in Egypt or Syria, it wouldn't have gotten any notice at all.
"'The beatings must not be too harsh because the goal is to cause psychological suffering and not to humiliate or physically abuse,' he added. Mustafa was sentenced to one year and three months in prison and fined nine euros (seven dollars) a day for eight days. His lawyer Jose Luis Bravo said he planned to appeal the conviction, saying it was 'unfair' and the result of 'media pressure'.
"During his trial, Mustafa said he was against wife-beating and that his book was merely a compilation of sacred Muslim texts on women. But the judge ruled that the cleric had sought to portray his opinions as those of a theological expert on Islam, presenting 'his own views on the husband's rights to punish his rebel wife'."
Mustafa was right. But the judge seems to have been swayed by some Muslim advocates in the courtroom into believing that Mustafa was just passing off his opinions as Islamic doctrine. There is abundant evidence, as I show once again in Islam Unveiled, that this is far from being just Mustafa's opinion, but represents a common Islamic teaching.
"'The whole work has an obsolete male chauvinist tone, in some instances very pronounced which violates the constitutional principle of equality," he said. And the comments attacked the right to "physical and moral integrity" enshrined in the Spanish constitution, the judge added.
"Two groups representing Spanish Muslims, the Federation of Muslim Entities and the Islamic Commission, had come forward ahead of the trial to state that the Koran and other sacred texts condemned violence against women."
I'd like to see their explanation of Sura 4:34.
"The trial was the result of a complaint presented in 2000 by about 100 women's groups which welcomed the outcome of the trial.
"Women's rights' groups said Wednesday they were 'very satisfied' because the case 'is progress in the fight against violence against women', their spokeswoman and lawyer Maria Jose Varela said. 'It is now clear that you cannot use religion like a shield...,' she added.
"'All religions have historical pasts that are strongly discriminatory against women but to use texts of historical bygone eras is not fighting for religious freedom but trying to avoid application of the law,' she added."
Yes, but unfortunately most Muslims do not regard the Qur'an as a text "of historical bygone eras." They consider it to be just as relevant to today's situation as to that of the times in which it was written.
You may BELIEVE anything you wish. You may not, however, DO anything you wish.
The concept of "rights" is far more complex than this, but perhaps putting it at a very primitive level, many otherwise clueless Muslims can get a training-wheel idea of what a "right" is: "Your rights stop at my skin."
I sure do wish there were more interest in the concept of "rights," but hey, until our schools change, many people can't even SPELL "rights," much less derive them from axiomatic principles.
Bummer.
Very encouraging that Spain did not treat this imam's words as inconsequential, or, worse, as deserving implicit respect on "multicultural" grounds.
Still, I can't help worrying about the future application of such a broad legal statement as "you can't use religion as a shield." How long before this gets used against Catholics or others?
In American First Amendment law (which, I realize, doesn't apply in Spain), you can BELIEVE anything you wish, but you can't DO anything you wish -- and SAY is somewhere in between, but closer to the BELIEVE end than the DO end.
Keep up the good work, Robert. I've linked to this blog on mine.
Cacciaquida, I agree wholeheartedly that freedom of expression is protected (thankfully!) by the Constitution.
However, freedom of expression is not allowed when it violates another person's individual rights. I'm sure you've heard about the case where the judge illustrated this by saying, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."
Here's why that is true. There are two ways that individual rights can be violated: 1) By the initiation (please note "initiation") of the use of physical force, or 2) by its intellectual equivalent, fraud or deception.
The holy man in question granted to one human being the moral authority to initiate the use of physical force upon another human being. Since to initiate the use of physical force is to violate individual rights, the moral authority was granted fraudulently.
To say that the holy man was not guilty of a violation is akin to saying that the guy sitting in the getaway car outside the bank is not guilty of a crime when his buddy inside shoots the teller.
The sticking point here is whether the holy man was merely, as he claimed, compiling selections from the Koran, or whether he was actually using these sacred verses to grant one person the moral authority to initiate the use of physical force against another.
The same prohibition against the violation of rights applies universally, no matter what the religious belief or social system. If, for example, the Inquisition were resurrected and the Church began burning heretics alive, that would also be a no-no.
Cubed: It is not *him*. Muslims believe in their holy book verbatim, and that book says that women SHOULD BE PHISICALLY PUNISHED AT TIMES. They -the hundreds of millions- believe that that is THE WORD of God Eternal, verbatim. What will we all do with them? Beats me, but makes me feel a bit down.
Concerning wife beating in Islam . . . there is a sura that mentions "lightly beating one's wife" if she should disobey her husband.
Now, one must realize that Islam originated 14 centuries ago in the Hijaz of the Arabian peninsula. Misogyny and wife-beating are not a phenomenon alone in the Islamic world.
Being a Latino Muslim, Latino culture has been characterized as "macho." The Bible makes reference to the fact that a woman should obey her husband like the Church is the bride of the Body of Christ. Meaning, a woman's place in the biblical tradition should be subordinate to that of her husband. She should honor and obey him.
Similar attitudes are expressed in Hindu India concerning the role of a wife to her husband.
Now, all forms of organized religion from Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism perpetuate male chauvinism and male supremacy.
Islam is no different. Yet, religion changes over time depending upon time and place. Since I'm gay, I will never have a wife and many including Christians in this country would deprive me of the right to form a family that is legally recognized under the state and nation I live in.
The Bible like the Qur'an has many problematic passages that condone violence and sadly the subordination of women. But we must learn to reread these passages and historicize them in the time period in which they were first put into writing.
There are those who would prefer to take the word of a leader in antiquity as the final and immutable source of morality, and to leave it at that, unexamined any further.
I prefer to use reality as my resource, and to use reason as the tool with which to examine my premises in an unremitting effort to discover what is accurate.