DV in the SA Muslim community

The role of religion in DV situations has been previously described in this blog. A previous entry on the topic (see the entry dated November 22, 2009) discussed whether religion could ever be used to justify violence against women, and the author concluded that there was nothing in the religious texts that offered such a justification. Religion, however, is not always lived according to the texts; often, it is a deeply rooted cultural way of life. Although the religious culture may not tolerate physical violence, it may circumscribe and limit the role of women, thereby allowing another kind of violence against women.

Following the passage of the 1965 immigration laws, many Muslims immigrated to the US, bringing with them a strong sense of religious and cultural identity from their home countries. Upon arrival, they founded Islamic Community Centers in order to meet the needs of the Muslim community. Ruksana Ayyub, a psychotherapist and anti-DV activist in the SA and Muslim community, finds that these centers have not always been sympathetic to victims of DV, since they consider DV a problem that affects only ‘modern American women.’

To make sense of the lack of community response to the issue of DV, it is necessary to have a broader understanding of the role of women within Islam. Although Islam was originally a religion that empowered women and acknowledged their status and value, cultural distortions over the years have changed it into one that disempowers and oppresses them. To her disappointment, Ayyub observes that in Muslim religious centers across the US, debates rage about the right of a husband to beat his wife, and about the lower status and limited roles of women.

Islamic religion and culture expects women to fit into certain prescribed roles – mother, daughter, wife – and those who fit these roles are accordingly awarded status and respect. But women who do not subscribe to these roles, such as women attempting to leave abusive marriages, are met with disdain and resistance. Instead of supporting them, the religious community demands that they stay in their marriages and make the necessary sacrifices for the continuation of the relationship.

Should a woman choose to pursue a divorce against the wishes of her religious community, she may find herself stymied by Islamic religious law, since, in Islam, divorce is generally discouraged, and is sometimes only granted when the divorce proceedings are initiated by the husband. Women are further obstructed by the fact that most Muslim marriages and divorces in the US are performed at two levels – the religious level and the civil level. But Islamic rules of marriage, divorce, and remarriage are often at odds with civil law in the US; these discrepancies often prove disadvantageous to women. For instance, men may grant their wives a civil divorce but not a religious one; the lack of a religious divorce is not an impediment to men when they seek to remarry, since they are allowed by Islam to have up to four wives, but the same is not true for women. In other cases, men may take on secondary wives through religious marriage; in case these marriages are unsuccessful, the secondary wives are afforded no legal protection since the marriages were neither legal nor registered. In order to prevent this misuse of religious law, Ayyub encourages Muslim institutions to consider a civil divorce a final divorce, and to require proof of civil marriage in order to perform a religious marriage.

Unfortunately, even when there is a legal and religious divorce, it does not necessarily guarantee ease of remarriage. Although the Prophet Mohammed himself married divorced and widowed women as an example to other men, divorced women are now considered inauspicious and harbingers of ill-luck, making it difficult for them to seek spouses.

Ayyub observes that the Hijab (traditional head covering) and the Chador (face veil) are making a comeback among younger Muslim women in the US for very paradoxical reasons – on the one hand, it protects them from the sexualized norms of Western society, and on the other, it affords them independence because they find that the garment frees them from family objections. But this independence is often limited, since Muslim women are discouraged from pursuing a career. They may be allowed to do so only if their work does not require too much interaction with men and if it does not interfere with their familial responsibilities. Ayyub narrates the story of a Muslim woman completing her doctoral studies who was advised by a religious leader not to pursue a career so that she could fulfill her primary duty to her spouse. Although, in this particular case, the woman finds a way to continue working, Ayyub finds that many women have sacrificed careers and life goals in order to fulfill their responsibilities to the family.

The Qur’an generally encourages peace, justice, and kindness towards women; a single verse that may be interpreted as a justification for violence, however, dominates views of DV in the Muslim community. When there is DV in a relationship, religious leaders advise women to remain patient, accepting, obedient, and loyal; there are few consequences, if any, for the men. The majority of Islamic centers fail to address the issue within the community, and many refuse to provide information about outside resources such as state-sponsored shelters, support groups, and legal and social services, viewing them as too ‘radical’ and harmful to the Islamic community.

The experience of Muslim women is further complicated by their South Asian cultural background and their families of origin. These factors will be further discussed in the following week.

[For more information, see: Ayyub, R. (2000). Domestic Violence in the South Asian Muslim Immigrant Population in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 237-248.]