MAY 6 — I read both Shafiqah Othman Hamzah’s article and the subsequent respond by Sairana Mohd. Saad, and wondered how far off the understanding on the issue of consent and sexual violence is even among women. It is worth going back to the basis of a marriage contract as written in the Quran 4:21, that says — and how could you take it while you have gone in unto each other and they have taken from you a solemn (firm) covenant? The interpretation of this verse and subsequent ones by Muslims jurists had in turn concluded a formal marriage contract on the basis of a business contract.
What is the impact of this?
In a business contract, the man and the woman entered into matrimony as free agents capable in making decisions in which the consent of the woman must be obtained. Here we can see that Islamic laws have been progressive in recognizing women as an independent legal entity, as opposed to something that belongs to her father or her family. Muslim jurists have interpreted this as an exchange of the mahr (money and protection) that she receives and the right for the man to have exclusive access to her sexual organs — which is said to be his dominion (milk) but not his property (mulk). However, this has introduced a slippery slope in which inequality between the male and female spouse is pronounced.
The pertinent question is — does a Muslim woman’s agency and consent that she has before marriage is sustained after she becomes a married woman? People talked about duties that Islam has envisioned for the male and female spouse, in real life often locking them in fixed gender roles in which men automatically assumed to be the leader and the women as followers. Men are seen as maintaining his wife in exchange for his wife’s obedience, demanding it even for those men who are unable or unwilling to provide. This image of marriage of subjugation is not exclusive to Muslim history, which is in contradiction to the essence of harmonious marriage advocated in the Quran — marriage is based on mutual respect and honour, not on the subservience of the female to the male. It is not an institution to enslave a woman to the man who buys her at the highest price and then sustains her material and physical needs only, with no concern for the higher aspects of human development [1].
Maqasid shariah (objectives of the Islamic legal law) emphasiSes on the protection of intellect and soul, among others. In order to preserve the intellect, any harm to the body is forbidden. This brings us to the issue of marital rape. Since any form of force and violence is not tolerated at all from the point of view of maqasid shariah, the onus falls on both parties to protect and to do no harm to each other. Real life is much more complex than that — as this doesn’t negate the occurrence of marital rape, made worse by its deniers by reducing it to “reluctant sex” or “duties” when it actually involves violence, greatly harming the body and mind. What is the point of a guarantee of protection when a man can violate his wife as he pleases? As stated in Quran 61:2-3 — O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do. Sairana makes the mistake of reducing rapists simply to persons who are drugged and drunk – rapists, like other bad people, do not like look like monsters. They are people who use power and violence to sexually violate others — and for the most part are perfectly sane. Denying rape and marital rape only gives rapists a sense of entitlement that they could violate anyone to satisfy their urges.
Sairana seems to allude that the purpose of marriage is to serve the sexual needs of men, that polygamy is for him to channel his lust. This is in direct contradiction with the life of the Prophet, whereby he only took a second wife after spending 25 years of monogamous marriage with Khadijah Khuwaylid. The polygamous marriages that he undertook were mostly to preserve political alliance and to provide protection for elderly women [2]. Sairana’s careless use of Quran 4:2 is irresponsible, as when read together with Quran 4:129, it is very clear that polygamy is highly discouraged as human beings cannot be just and it is advised that monogamy is preferred.
It is symptom of siege mentality that one cannot differentiate between constructive criticisms and insults. Sairana’s article contains numerous fallacies, unfounded statements and personal attacks that do not address the issue at hand — which is the question of consent and the guarantees of protection under maqasid shariah. Only a culture of blind following (taqlid) that do not bother to read, compare and analyze could produce such deficiency — constantly under threat from things they do not bother to find out while assuming what they know, regardless of validity, is the correct one. This is very far from what one is constantly encouraged to do when reading the Quran – that is – think!
I have another thing to say — Islam and Muslims are two very different things. And it’s time for us to think deeply the root of such huge divergence.
Ref:
[1] Amina Wadud, Quran and Woman: Re-reading The Sacred Texts From A Woman’s Perspective, Oxford University Press, 1999
[2] Reza Aslan, No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam, Arrow Books, 2005
* Zhu Mohammad and Eliza Nawi are ordinary Malaysians who observe current issues.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
