2. Beating Women

 

What he, may Allah have mercy on him, considered as a justification to discard an Arab man beating a woman is not eligible for justification for the following reasons:

 

FIRST: The statement of the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) about shaming a man who beats a woman does not mean it was impossible for them to do it in the presence of a stronger motive which would prompt them to do the most heinous of crimes and discard the greatest of sanctities. This is so especially when such a motive is lust for power and authority, when the government, once well established, could wipe out such a shame by the awe it enforces and by the wealth and power it would enjoy. Necks would bow down to it either out of fear or greed. Then the challenger finds himself overwhelmed by the post of successorship to Prophethood, by its awe and sanctity, by respect for the creed, for conviction among the general public.

On the other hand, it was a shame to kill newborn females, or to kill the son or the brother for worldly gains. Al-Khayzaran killed her son out of her lust for authority, as they claim, and al-Ma’man killed his brother (al-Aman), and they are well known for their statement that “authority is sterile; it has no womb.”^[1]

Had there been adherence to abstention from doing what is ugly, they would not have said to the Prophet (A.S.), and he heard what they said, “The Prophet is hallucinating.” This happened although the religious obligation is stronger than that of customs and traditions. Pronouncing a statement like this about the Prophet brings them eternal shame, and it is much greater than hitting a woman or invading her home or letting her listen to very rude and insolent words.

To sum up, if one fears shame, he has to fear it in all his affairs and circumstances, not fearing it here rather than there. For one to fear shame here and not there, as in daring to say something like the above to the Messenger of Allah (A.S.), is not clear, nor is it acceptable. Rather, when we see him having “courage” to accept shame in certain situations makes us hesitate to brand as lies what is attributed to him in another situation. So, how is it when this is proven with decisive proofs and clear evidences? Can this person who casts doubts afford to deny their threats against al-Zahra’ (A.S.) to set her house to fire while she and her children were all inside it? Is this not a shame for those who make such threats? Is it possible that slapping her on the cheek is the only shame and anything else?!

 

SECOND: This individual, who seeks support from what KASHIFAL-GHITA’ says, is the same one who places large question marks on the authenticity of texts recorded in Nahjul Balagha and others if they point out to any weakness in woman’s personality. This text, the one which he cites as testimony for such a weakness saying, “... they are weak in body, in spirit, and in mind.” Yet he himself has doubted the particularity of this same text more than once! So, how can he cite a proof here for something which he somewhere else denies altogether?!

 

THIRD: During the battle of Kerbala’, the daughters of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) were beaten with whips when dark grudge blinded their minds and visions, distracting them from considering its shameful consequences in this life and their being exposed to the Wrath of the Almighty in the life to come.

There are many historical proofs which testify that in the presence of an impetus stronger than keeping shame away, they do not for a moment hesitate to accept such a shame. We would like to mention some of these proofs as follows:

 

1. A father used to bury his female newborn in the ground for fear she would eat his food; Allah Almighty has said, “And when the female infant buried alive is asked for what sin she was killed” (Qur’an, 81:8-9).

 

2. The same person states that Ibn Ziyad, may Allah curse him, was about to kill Lady Zainab when she reminded him of things which enraged him. `Amr ibn Hareeth interfered, stopping him by saying to him, “She is only a woman; can she be held accountable for what she said? She cannot be blamed when she thus prattles.”^[2]

 

3. This same person, who seeks from the statement by KASHIFAL-GHITA’ support for his own claim, states that Zainab (A.S.) was whipped, and so were the daughters who were born to the one who received the wahi (A.S.)^[3], peace be upon them all; so, refer to his books and speeches.

 

4. Sumayya, mother of `Ammar ibn Yasir, was killed while being tortured in Mecca by the “Pharaoh of Quraish,” namely Aba Jahl, may Allah curse him, becoming the first lady martyr in Islamic history.^[4]

 

5. `Omer (ibn al-Khattab) used to torture a bondmaid from Bana Mu’ammal. He used to keep beating her till he felt tired of it. It is then that he would say to her, “I apologize to you for stopping beating you; I only stopped because I felt bored.”^[5] Umm Sharak, may Allah have mercy on her, was tortured, too; so, why did someone’s fear of shame stop him from committing such shameful acts?

 

6. Books of history and tradition tell us that when `Othman ibn Math`an died, women wept, so `Omer (ibn al-Khattab) kept whipping them. The Messenger of Allah (A.S.) took the whip away from `Omer’s hands as he (A.S.) said to him, “Wait, O `Omer! Let them weep..., etc.”^[6]

 

7. `Omer (ibn al-Khattab) beat the women who mourned the death of Abu Bakr, so much so that the Mu`tazilite scholar said, “The first to be beaten by `Omer was Umm Farwah daughter of Aba Quhafah. Abu Bakr died, so women mourned him, and among them was his sister, Umm Farwah. `Omer prohibited them repeatedly, yet they kept doing it, so he took Umm Farwah from among them and kept hitting her with his baton. The other women dispersed as they fled away.”^[7] Others have documented this incident, so let those who would like to research it do just that.^[8]

 

8. When Khalid ibn al-Walid died, women assembled at the house of Maymana to mourn him. `Omer came and beat them with his baton. The veil of one of them fell on the ground, so they said, “O commander of the faithful! Her veil!” He said, “Leave her, for she has no sanctity.”^[9]

 

9. The Prophet (A.S.) permitted anyone to kill Hubar ibn al-Aswad because of what he had committed against Zainab as is well known.

 

FOURTH: Why does the conscience of these folks not recognize that `Omer was the one who hit al-Zahra’ (A.S.), justifying it by attaching shame to him, while their conscience accepts to attach the same to Qunfath instead?! Just as `Omer was an Arab who was apprehensive of a stigma, so was Qunfath! Just as `Omer belonged to the tribe of Bana `Udayy, so was Qunfath. Why apply a principle to one and not to the other?!

But al-Tasatturi^[10], the critic, has sated that Qunfath belonged to Taim and was not an `Adawi, and that the meaning of the text is that he was loyal to Bana `Udayy because he was their slave. Whether he belonged to Bana `Udayy or to Bana Taim, if Arabs regarded beating a woman as a foul act, any Arab should denounce such an act and reject it, whether this person committed it or that. If a slave committed such an act to an Arab woman, an Arab man would confront it, according to their concepts, with a greater sensitivity and denunciation.

 

FIFTH: Ali (A.S.) is quoted as having said that they did not confiscate Qunfath’s property, as they would have done to any of their slaves had such a slave committed an act like that, because they appreciated how he hit al-Zahra’^[11].