[enfoires]

Salam

A few years ago I had the misfortune of watching a Q&A session on tv with this "scholar" advising an abused wife to put up with domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He explained that all family units should follow a hierarchy – the man of the house (husband/father) makes all the decisions and has the right (or even the obligation) to deny his wife her personal autonomy (eg. he has every right to stop his wife leaving the house). He then explained a woman is 'naturally emotional' and needs to be led, and that she should always obey her husband. Even if he is abusive.

He argued that a woman who puts up with mental and physical abuse will be rewarded for her Sabr on the day of judgment. He then justified such an extreme position by painting a picture of the dystopian lawlessness and anarchy that would prevail without leaders – his point was that women have to be led in the same way people have to be led. Even if the leaders are ruthless, tyrannical and despotic.

Leaving aside the ugly chauvinism described above, what I'm finding difficult to come to terms with is this authoritarian streak in Islam which I find regardless of what tafsir I read. Don't get me wrong, I am no anarchist but I strongly believe that forcing people to adhere to inflexible, sometimes draconian rules (and punishing free thinking souls who refuse to conform) impedes human progress. It's tragic that a number of Imams (even eminent ones like Al-Sudais) went out of their way to condemn the protesters in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Syria as 'unislamic'. It is even more tragic that they are technically right, if we are to follow mainstream interpretations of the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

Please share your thoughts.

JazakAllah Khair.

Well, first off, just about any religion is essentially "authoritarian" in nature, because it assumes itself to be an authority and tells you how to lead your life. What you are essentially getting at is governance. Personally I don't subscribe to the Saudi view of governance that says the government should monitor and control every aspect of one's life to make sure one never is able to do anything remotely un-Islamic.

First off, it's quite simply impossible for a government to do such a thing. Saudi Arabia--a country which has almost unlimited financial resources and a tiny population--fails horribly in this manner even though it should be immensely easy given all the resources at their disposal.

Secondly, I don't believe the government itself should enforce Islamic values (laws of course need enforcement). I think people should. A government is simply not capable of truly doing such a thing; only social pressure will ensure that Islam is adhered to. This seems to be how most Islamic societies have operated within the past.

Sure, the Ottomans and other caliphates enforced the hudood and such things, but in no text that I've ever read on them have I heard of these governments having morality police that patrolled the villages making sure people never er. Their people took care of this for them.

Also, all Saudi shaykhs have come out to speak against the uprisings happening in the Middle East--they were pretty much forced to. Whether or not the protests violate Islam is quite questionable. First, the protestors weren't rebelling, at least not a first. They were merely taking to the streets to express their dissatisfaction. Is it un-Islamic to say you're dissatisfied with how your country is being run? Of course not! It was only when protestors started getting shot at that the rumblings of a rebellion started to occur, and even then, almost none of them broke out into true rebellions--with the exception of Libya. As for whether or not those are justified I'd remind you, oppression is worse than killing.