Dispelling the Sunni myth that women are obliged to OBEY their husbands

[ameen]

A very common belief propagated by the Sunni men is that women have been religiously ordained to OBEY their husbands. This is not about the mutual cooperation and loyalty that comes with marriage, which are very much necessary for its stability and success, but is about OBEDIENCE, like slave is to master, and servant is to God. In-fact, the Sunni men have fabricated numerous Hadith slandering the Prophet to give them some kind of divine excuse for their cowardice and desire to control women. One such Hadith, which appears in one of the 'six authentic books' of Sunnism, and classed as 'Sahih' by An-Nawawi in 'Riyad-us-Saliheen', is often used to deceive women into such obedience and subservience. The narration shockingly compares the exclusive right of God to recieve PROSTRATION to the PROSTRATION TO HUSBANDS. Before taking a look at this Hadith, it's important to know that the Revelation of the Qur'an strongly condemns any form of prostration to the creation of Allah, and makes clear that a true believer never prostrates to anything other than Allah:

"Do not prostrate (SA-JA-DA) to the sun or the moon. Instead, prostrate (SA-JA-DA) only to Allah who has created them, if it is really Him you worship." - (41:37)

The Arabic word with the root 'SA-JA-DA', which in the literal sense means 'prostration', but metaphorically refers to 'worship', 'submission', and 'obedience', is used in the above Verse to direct all forms of worship to Allah alone. Imagine now that the Prophet has just recieved revelation of the above Verse which in the most explicit terms prohibits prostration to Allah's creation, and then read the following lie attributed to the Prophet, which uses the same word 'SA-JA-DA' as in the Verse but this time in relation to HUSBANDS:

"If I was to order someone to prostrate (SA-JA-DA) to another, I would order the woman to prostrate (SA-JA-DA) to her husband." - (At-Thirmidi, Riyad-us-Saliheen, Vol. 1, 35:285)

If you are in doubt that the Prophet may have said the above words to give men such a godly status, then the following Verse should reassure you that the Prophet was warned by Allah to strictly stay away from such idolatrous notions:

"It has been revealed to you, as it was revealed to those before you, that if you ever associate partners with Allah, then all of your deeds will come to nothing, and you will be among the losers." - (39:65)

Also, it makes no sense whatsoever that the Prophet would make such a polytheistic analogy when the primary theme of the entire Qur'an is to invite mankind to MONOTHEISM and the sole worship of ONE GOD. The fact that it is using an 'analogy' gives it no excuse to be any more acceptable, especially since it breaks the basic prohibitions and principles in the Qur'an. Would it be appropriate for the Prophet to make a similar analogy with the crime of theft, and say that 'If I were to steal something, then I would like to steal such and such' ? Or 'If I were to eat forbidden food, then I would like to eat such and such' ? Of-course it's ridiculous to assert that the Prophet would make such statements using sinful acts, just as he would never make that idolatrous statement which associates husbands with Allah. This is especially true because the sin involved in this case, idolatry, is according to the Qur'an the worst form of sin:

"Allah does not forgive that partners are associated with Him, but he forgives whomever He wills for all other sins. Those who associate partners with Allah have fabricated the gravest sin." - (4:48)

It has become too obvious that the only basis the tyrannical Sunni cowards have for controlling, oppressing, and torturing women is in their idolatrous fabrications which seek to turn them into godlike figures for holy obedience. Many of these men are quick to enforce their 'right' of obedience on women using physical means, but would never dare take the same measures on men their own size. This reflects their general cowardice and craving for control as well as their tendency to unknowingly lean towards idolatrous practices and beliefs. This is bound to happen when people neglect the Words of God and follow Hearsay instead.

[AceOfHearts]

Thanks brother ameen. As you know I have read this work of yours elsewhere before.

Very well said. This aspect of Hadiths I find very disturbing.

The consistent Hadiths which keeps on going on about husband's rights and more particualarly husbands sexual rights over the wife which makes the wife some sort of an object to fulfil the husband's desire, once used to make me very depressed. Even to this day, I resent looking at them.

Thanks brother.

[kellyjaz]

It seems like ur taking the hadith out of context.

it clearly says if i was commanded to do so, hence he knows he was not.

[ameen]

It seems like ur taking the hadith out of context.

it clearly says if i was commanded to do so, hence he knows he was not.

you've totally lost the point of the article unfortunately, the point is that it is totally inappropriate to make such an idolatrous analogy regardless of whether it uses any 'if' conditionals.

[Zainab_M]

You and Kelly both have your own correct points.  Kelly was perhaps perceiving it as a hypothetical statement rather than an analogical one.  However, it still remains to be an unacceptable concept because the Quraan makes it crystal clear that husband-wife relationship must be based on mutual understanding and love.  Accordingly, the Prophet's very gentle treatment of his wives is also well known.  Yet, this Hadith (and many others) ignores all such commandments and facts, and tries to introduce a harsh culture of male chauvinism. 

[ameen]

You and Kelly both have your own correct points.  Kelly was perhaps perceiving it as a hypothetical statement rather than an analogical one.

It's not possible to see that statement as hypothetical without it being analogical too. It's hypothetical on account of the 'if I was to...' part of the statement but analogical on account of the comparison between prostration to God and prostration to husbands. But in this case the 'hypothetical' part of the statement has been deliberately added as a means to introduce the analogical part, because obviously without the 'If I was to' part the Hadith would read: 'I have been ordered to tell women to prostrate to their husbands'! It's for this reason that the hypothetical element is just as bad as the analogical element as they both work together to present a concept of marital arrangement which is brazenly contradictory to the Qur'anic emphasis on strict monotheism.

[N. Truth Seeker]

Yes sure the analysed anology contradicts the Quran's emphasis on strict monotheism.  This is a common feature of the Hadith literature as a whole, no matter which collection.  Secondly, these days with so much of feminism going on everywhere, even polytheistic women wouldn't consider such orders.

[Zainab_M]

It's not possible to see that statement as hypothetical without it being analogical too. It's hypothetical on account of the 'if I was to...' part of the statement but analogical on account of the comparison between prostration to God and prostration to husbands. But in this case the 'hypothetical' part of the statement has been deliberately added as a means to introduce the analogical part, because obviously without the 'If I was to' part the Hadith would read: 'I have been ordered to tell women to prostrate to their husbands'! It's for this reason that the hypothetical element is just as bad as the analogical element as they both work together to present a concept of marital arrangement which is brazenly contradictory to the Qur'anic emphasis on strict monotheism.

Yes brother, you're right, there's a link between the hypothetical and analogical sides of this hadith, though this may escape the minds of some readers.

However, even if we focus on the analogical side, the important aspect here is to grasp what this hadith is trying to insinuate.  Having said that, it isn't literally telling women to prostrate before their husbands.  Rather, it dare not, which is precisely the reason why it's cleverly carrying that hypothetical note.  But what we do know for sure is that this hadith is definitely trying to project the concept of total subservience of the wife towards her husband.  It's showing the green light to men that their over-bearing and dominating presence before their wives need not have any limits.  As we know, this concept of hadith (which has also been portrayed by various other hadiths) has been readily accepted in many male-dominated Muslim societies.  Though these men don't literally order their wives to go on sajoud before them, they do use such hadiths to justify their total supremacy over their wives.  I've personally heard some men comparing their relationship with their wives in their homes with that of a boss and his subordinate at the workplace.  It's this  mindset that's greatly responsible for the violations of women's rights in our Muslim community.  And needless to say, such a culture flatly contradicts the family values based on mutual love, trust and kindness as instructed in the Glorious Quraan in so many Ayahs.