To further elucidate the complex nature of secret, serial polygynous marriages, and expound on the challenging, welcomed perspectives elicited by readers, let us begin by addressing the issue of the victims’ accountability.
Sisters such as Patty, Halima and Ruqayah are often blamed for getting themselves into messy situations without strongly considering that they are introduced to Islam through the “back door”, and are under the powerful influence of the men involved. Cult leaders, by definition, are expert manipulators, pathological liars, charming, and promiscuous. They entice, snarl, and seduce their victims through their apparent knowledge and practice of deen, impeccable modesty and observance of Islamic etiquettes, and abundant generosity. On the surface, these brothers possess all the qualities of someone who fears Allah and would make a good mate.
As a single, divorced sister traveling with a group, Ruqayah met her husband-to-be while being lost during her performance of Hajj. In a foreign country and disoriented, she was touched by the kindness of the respectable brother who offered to help her get back to her hotel. After the ordeal, contact information was exchanged and upon their return and many phone calls, he traveled to her country for dawah. Under this pretext, he visited her local masjid, was welcomed as a religious authority in it during his frequent visits, and eventually offered to marry her to complete “half her deen”. The marriage was secret: not in her community, but to those in the country and community he lived in, including his wives.
This leads us to the issue of sisters going behind sisters’ backs to marry their husbands. In Islam, polygyny does not require the permission of the wife, nor does it need to be justified by war, famine, natural disasters, or the like. As long as a Muslim man is God-fearing and just, he is free to marry a second, third, and fourth wife. Allah has stated in the Quran that women are given rights equal to the rights of men. Thus, Muslim women are free to marry to guard their chastity. However, the existent double standards make it acceptable and praiseworthy for a Muslim man to marry (or marry more than one wife) to guard his chastity, while when a Muslim sister marries for that reason only, she is considered lewd and desperate.
Moreover, cult leaders often have a strategic alliance that lends them great credibility and leverage: the “head” wife. She is generally as controlling and manipulative as the cult leader himself. The head wife is a powerful influencer, part of the abuse equation, and may even seek out the next victim herself. Although subjected to emotional, sexual, and/or religious abuse, the head wife idolizes her husband, is subservient to his every whim and desire, and sees pleasing him as her stairway to heaven. This is why legal records show the head wife is often prosecuted along with the cult leader for harm done to cult victims.
Breaking away from a cult can be as difficult, if not more, than breaking free from an abusive relationship. Contrary to various claims, victims of abuse might recognize the abuse and be unable to put an end to it. Law enforcement officers are most familiar with this phenomenon, when responding to domestic violence 911 calls at the same address time after time. Great efforts are currently being made within the Muslim community to raise the awareness on domestic abuse and its vicious cycles. The recognition that our community and religious leaders are in dire need of training is critical, so that 1) sisters who are being abused and approach the imams for help are not told to “go back and be patient”, and 2) brothers who are known to be abusive are held accountable for their actions.
Halima was able to break free from her cult, and exposed the brother in her locality for marrying and divorcing sisters in a secret, serial manner, abusing them, and even coercing them into unlawful, deviant sexual practices including threesomes with the head wife. When confronted with such a delicate and disturbing case, the community bowed down and failed Halima by excusing the brother from his wrongdoings simply by his making of an oath to Allah. Brothers involved in the case even asked the cult leader forgiveness for “backbiting him” while trying to discuss the case seeking resolution.
As long as the Muslim community is unable to socially condemn and hold brothers accountable for abusing sisters and the sanctity of marriage, secret serial marriages are bound to continue to occur. It is not enough for one community to take a stand and make the brother leave the community. In an age of advanced, instant communication, Muslims must use technology to their advantage to warn sisters from brothers known for their abusive tendencies, as it is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saw).
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Forbidding Evil: Muslims "Cast the First Stone"
The majority of Muslims are familiar with the alleged Biblical story of Jesus (as) asking those free of sin “to cast the first stone” in their condemnation of an adulteress. Pericope Adulterae, as the story is typically referred to, is claimed by Biblical scholars to be attributed to the Bible even though its origins are not divine and is missing from the earlier scrolls of the sacred text. Based on the significance of the story and the fact that it does not contradict the noble character and teachings of Jesus (as), most Biblical scholars have agreed upon its inclusion in the later versions of the Bible.
In Pericope Adulterae, Jesus (as) is approached by a group of hypocrites, with stones in hand, to judge in the case of an adulteress. The woman, commonly referred to as “the prostitute”, is caught in the act and brought to Jesus (as) for judgment. Knowing their deceiving nature, Jesus (as) addresses the hypocrites by saying: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”. Haunted by their conscience, the group of men retreat from the scene, leaving Jesus (as) and the woman alone. He then asks of her if there were any accusers who condemned her, and in their absence, he then tells her to “go on and sin no more” .
This story presents us with the human dilemma of judging others for their evil actions when we ourselves are guilty of sin. As Muslims, we are constantly deliberating between enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, as Allah (swt) commanded us in the Quran , and keeping our sins in front of us when judging others. All too often we encounter fellow Muslim brothers and sisters publicly transgressing Allah’s boundaries in our communities: the brother with the convenience store who sells liquor, the sister who is always backbiting other sisters, the brother who abuses his wife. In these situations, we ask ourselves: “Who am I to say anything? Isn’t it hypocritical to admonish them when I am not without sin?”
In Islam, we can approach this moral predicament through the hadith reported by Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra), where the Prophet (saw) said "Whoever amongst you sees an evil, he must change it with his hand; if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest form of Faith" . Muslims have an obligation to forbid evil in all cases or they run the risk of being cursed by Allah for not condemning it, as stated by Prophet Muhammad (saw) in his saying: “Nay, by Allah, you either enjoin good and forbid evil and catch hold of the hand of the oppressor and persuade him to act justly and stick to the truth, or Allah will involve the hearts of some of you with the hearts of others and will curse you as He had cursed them.”
Looking back at Pericope Adulterae, we find critics of the story questioning Jesus’ wisdom in not punishing the adulteress. It is often argued that Jesus (as) understood the hypocrites’ approach to be a test of his knowledge and adherence to the Mosaic Law. Then there is the issue of double standards, in that only the adulteress was brought forth, leaving the unanswered questions of “Who was the adulterer?” and “Why was he not brought along with her?” Some critics are of the opinion that the adulterer may have been someone in the crowd, holding a position of authority from amongst the hypocrites, hence been left “off the hook”.
Muslims face many a challenge when forbidding evil, and often lack the wisdom and sincerity to do so effectively. For instance, we might be quick to judge the new sister in our community who does not wear hijab, but fail to admonish the veteran sister who attends the study circle and backbites. Or we might firmly stand against the brother who sells liquor in his convenience store, but will not dare speak up against the religious leader who commits wrongdoings.
In situations as such, we are reminded of the hadith reported by ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, in which the Prophet (saw) stated: “The first defect (in religion) which affected the Children of Israel in the way that man would meet another and say to him: ‘Fear Allah and abstain from what you are doing, for this is not lawful for you’. Then he would meet him the next day and find no change in him, but this would not prevent him from eating with him, drinking with him and sitting in his assembles. When it came to this, Allah led their hearts into evil ways on account of their association with others.”
Forbidding evil is a duty that we all need to assume responsibly for our own sake and the benefit of our communities. No one amongst us is free of sin: we must forbid evil nonetheless.
In Pericope Adulterae, Jesus (as) is approached by a group of hypocrites, with stones in hand, to judge in the case of an adulteress. The woman, commonly referred to as “the prostitute”, is caught in the act and brought to Jesus (as) for judgment. Knowing their deceiving nature, Jesus (as) addresses the hypocrites by saying: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”. Haunted by their conscience, the group of men retreat from the scene, leaving Jesus (as) and the woman alone. He then asks of her if there were any accusers who condemned her, and in their absence, he then tells her to “go on and sin no more” .
This story presents us with the human dilemma of judging others for their evil actions when we ourselves are guilty of sin. As Muslims, we are constantly deliberating between enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, as Allah (swt) commanded us in the Quran , and keeping our sins in front of us when judging others. All too often we encounter fellow Muslim brothers and sisters publicly transgressing Allah’s boundaries in our communities: the brother with the convenience store who sells liquor, the sister who is always backbiting other sisters, the brother who abuses his wife. In these situations, we ask ourselves: “Who am I to say anything? Isn’t it hypocritical to admonish them when I am not without sin?”
In Islam, we can approach this moral predicament through the hadith reported by Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra), where the Prophet (saw) said "Whoever amongst you sees an evil, he must change it with his hand; if he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest form of Faith" . Muslims have an obligation to forbid evil in all cases or they run the risk of being cursed by Allah for not condemning it, as stated by Prophet Muhammad (saw) in his saying: “Nay, by Allah, you either enjoin good and forbid evil and catch hold of the hand of the oppressor and persuade him to act justly and stick to the truth, or Allah will involve the hearts of some of you with the hearts of others and will curse you as He had cursed them.”
Looking back at Pericope Adulterae, we find critics of the story questioning Jesus’ wisdom in not punishing the adulteress. It is often argued that Jesus (as) understood the hypocrites’ approach to be a test of his knowledge and adherence to the Mosaic Law. Then there is the issue of double standards, in that only the adulteress was brought forth, leaving the unanswered questions of “Who was the adulterer?” and “Why was he not brought along with her?” Some critics are of the opinion that the adulterer may have been someone in the crowd, holding a position of authority from amongst the hypocrites, hence been left “off the hook”.
Muslims face many a challenge when forbidding evil, and often lack the wisdom and sincerity to do so effectively. For instance, we might be quick to judge the new sister in our community who does not wear hijab, but fail to admonish the veteran sister who attends the study circle and backbites. Or we might firmly stand against the brother who sells liquor in his convenience store, but will not dare speak up against the religious leader who commits wrongdoings.
In situations as such, we are reminded of the hadith reported by ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, in which the Prophet (saw) stated: “The first defect (in religion) which affected the Children of Israel in the way that man would meet another and say to him: ‘Fear Allah and abstain from what you are doing, for this is not lawful for you’. Then he would meet him the next day and find no change in him, but this would not prevent him from eating with him, drinking with him and sitting in his assembles. When it came to this, Allah led their hearts into evil ways on account of their association with others.”
Forbidding evil is a duty that we all need to assume responsibly for our own sake and the benefit of our communities. No one amongst us is free of sin: we must forbid evil nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
