Afghan Women Abused, Trafficked, Raped and Thrown in Jail

The Associated Press today reported that more and more Afghan women who suffer domestic abuse at home are being put into jail and held at hospitals by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and doctors in order to protect them: “At a Kabul hospital, a 16-year-old girl who is too scared to give her name is recuperating from reconstructive surgery after her husband cut off her nose and ears, bashed out all but six of her teeth with a stone, and poured boiling water on her.”

Women who run away from home or who are caught in the sex trafficking between Afghanistan (the most lucrative commodity for the Taliban after opium was women for sex) are subject to rape, murder, and beatings. Their communities, unaware of the dynamic of sex trafficking and kidnapping, assume that these women have runaway and taken a lover. As such, if and when they return to their communities they are subject to the community’s interpretation of the zina laws, the laws of the Shari’a that dictate how adultery is to be punished: by death.

As in most rural communities, zina is mostly understood in a tribal context and in an over-inflated definition. Women are the most precious commodity for honour, reputation, and livelihood in the rural areas of Afghanistan and thus to lose a woman is to lose honour. Rural communities lack the resources to fund proper Islamic education, while tribalism and the Taliban’s brand of Deobandism has overwritten the rules and reality of the Shari’a.

The punishment for zina, which none of these women have committed is stoning and it requires three witnesses. The punishment for rape, sex trafficking, and kidnapping is not murder. And in terms of spousal abuse? The Qur’an permits you to beat your wife with something the width of your thumb and only to gently admonish her, it does not give you permission to cut her face off.

Mouchidat: Article on Women Scholars in Morocco

Recently The Daily Telegraph in England published this article on the new Moroccan women being trained as religious scholars. The article, by Sally Williams, discusses religious life at the Moroccan theological school, Dar al-Hadith al-Hassania, where women are being trained in the arts of Islamic scholarship.

This is a program that has been going on for a few years with the first class of fifty women graduating from the school in April 2006. The Moroccan government prides itself on its multi-pronged approach to combating domestic and global terrorism, by promoting an authentic approach to Islamic scholarship.

The issue at hand however, is not the Mouchidat, but rather how the Telegraph presented the women in the school. I have several issues that are common errors that people with no experience studying the Islamic world make and I will endeavor to correct them here.

First, throughout the article, Wiliams repeatedly refers to the women as “priests.” There are no priests in Islam. The concept of a “priest” is an entirely Western, Christian concept. Just as you would not refer to a Rabbi as a “Jewish priest”, you do not refer to those who are schooled in Islamic theology and jurisprudence as “priests.” Rather the correct term would be to call them “Alimaat” or “Alima.” You may also go as far as referring to them as “Sheikha” or making the traditionally masculine word “Imam” into “Imama” to accommodate this new breed of Islamic theologians. These women are not priests, they are scholars, well-versed in the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the Shari’a.

Second, the school that they attend is not a “seminary.” Again, the word “seminary” implies that they are following the same precepts as a Christian theological education and not one that is exclusively Islamic. They are not at a madrasa, either. I abhor the word madrasa since it has become synonymous with training in radical Islamism, eventhough it’s just a word that means “school.” Unfortunately, if we were to say that these women were being trained at a madrasa, the world would revolt with the immediate assumption that Morocco was training women Islamists behind the walls of the city medina.

Third, as is my usual issue with all things journalistic and published in the West, the spelling of “Qur’an” is always “Koran.” The spelling of “Qur’an” in Arabic is with a “qaaf” meaning the English equivalent of the letter “q” but this is really a minor thing in comparison to everything else.

These women are not priests, they are not in seminary. I know it’s just an issue of semantics, but in the deeper context and understanding of Islam, these sorts of nuances about Islamic culture are important in differentiating this monotheism from the rest. Yes, we have commonalities, but at the same time, it is important to explore and understand the differences in our theological educations.

Response to Question about 8-Year-Old Nojoud’s Divorce

A lot of you have read about the case of 8-year old Nojoud and her divorce in the papers lately. She was granted a divorce yesterday.

I was asked to comment on it on AllExperts.com by an asker, in particular in regards to how Nojoud’s husband beat her and forced her to have sex with him.

I thought it might be helpful for those of you who have been reading about the case. )

Subject: Islam, On Chastising Spouse
Question: Assalamoalikum,

I would like to have your view on following article http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/838, Under light of follwing Hadith from Dawud:

Dawud :: Book 11 : Hadith 2142
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Professopatra’s Response:

Answer:  Asalaam Alaikum,

First of all, you are not to beat your wife with any instrument wider than your thumb and certainly you are not to cause her extreme bodily harm. It is merely a reprimand and only as a last resort, and it is definitely not for coercion. I would discourage it altogether!

As for the article from Daniel Pipes, I find that his work is generally sensationalized. In reference to the case about Nojoud, the Yemeni girl who was married off to satisfy a debt, this is of course haram for a number of reasons:

1. She was under the legal age of 9 in the Shari’a and in Yemen.
2. She did not consent to the marriage and was given away in virtual slavery to her husband. You cannot, of course, enslave another Muslim.

So in the context of the hadith you are asking me of, the qadi is allowed and should ask the man who Nojoud was married to because the marriage is not legal and because he beat her not only outside of the prescribed methods for reprimanding a wife, but because the marriage was illegal! He beat her and raped her. Effectively, this girl was sold into slavery and raped, thus he can be asked.

Further, The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married A’isha at the age of 9 and she was still allowed to play with her dolls and live as a child until the time came when she was considered to be a woman. Unfortunately, the Prophet’s sunnah apparently does not apply to this man that Nojoud was forced to marry!

In reference to the article about veiling, well, that is not even Islamic as a woman is permitted and SHOULD reveal her face to her husband as the Qur’an permits it. The fact that that woman has not revealed her face is an unfortunate side-effect of indigenous Islam.

Jazakallah khairan!

“I am Du’a.”

 

One year ago today, Du’a Aswad was murdered by her relatives. The original post I made for this murder was on May 22, 2007 when news of her murder being broadcast on YouTube came to light.

Please remember Du’a today.