Note: Advocates for women’s rights, sometimes referred to as feminists, constantly complain about the various forms of violence that, in their view, men inflict on women. Although this opinion has many opponents who do not consider many male behaviors as violence at all, the question is why the conflict is essentially about violence by the husband against the wife, and no one speaks of violence by the wife against the husband. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Ali Shafiei, who is counted among intellectuals, believes that violence by women against men also exists, but for various reasons enumerated in this interview, it has not been much discussed. In this exclusive interview with Contemporary Jurisprudence, he explored the various dimensions of violence against the husband and the reasons for its absence in the scholarly discourse of jurisprudential knowledge. The full text of this engaging and insightful interview is presented below:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is violence in marital relations only realizable against the wife, or can violence by the wife against the husband also be envisioned?
Shafiei: Let me begin the discussion with this statement by Krishnamurti: “As long as the ‘I’ exists explicitly or subtly and cunningly, violence will inevitably exist.” [1]
The reality is that the human world has been accompanied by violence from its very beginnings. [2] We are beings full of anger; our entire human life passes in anger. [3] Lessing, a renowned German writer, believed: Man is created for action, not for reasoning, [4] and how aligned this expression is with the Quranic verse: “I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” Worship is action, not thought, and this verse seems to express the reality articulated in Lessing’s German words. Violence is much more closely tied to action than to thought and reasoning, and thus, one cannot depict humans as free from violence. [5]
Ezzatollah Fouladvand, the translator of the book Violence, writes in light of the reality of human existence: Given the importance of instincts in human nature and the critical role of emotions in life, it would be unrealistic to completely condemn violence and seek to expel it from the realm of human behavior. He then, in defense of violence, quotes the contemporary philosopher Hannah Arendt, author of Violence: Violence, meaning resorting to an action without discussion, speech, or consideration of consequences, is the only way to restore the scales of justice to balance. [6]
Hannah Arendt writes in one part of Violence: Violence is neither animalistic nor irrational… On the contrary, in both private and social life, situations arise where the only appropriate remedy is a violent act. [7]
Despite all these points, violence should not be seen as uncontrollable or incurable. Violence is neither a permanent and frequent solution in family, social, and governance crises and challenges, nor so necessary and valuable that it should be recommended. The efforts of philosophers, prophets, mystics, lawgivers, and those concerned with a humane society have been to manage violence, whether through scientific theories or passive resistance against violence, to critique and control it.
A human who can manage their violence is, in Nietzsche’s terms, a “superhuman” and in the mystics’ terms, a “perfect human.” Unfortunately, managing violence sometimes spills over into laws, leading people to believe that permissible and sacred violence is that which is legal, oblivious to the fact that violence, even under the shadow of law, keeps society in a state of immaturity and unripeness.
Perhaps it can be said—though idealistically—that the only way to control and manage violence in individual, social, and governance spheres is to take refuge in ethics, this rare human gem. Ethics can elevate humans to such heights that they not only refrain from violence but do not even think of it. But alas, the path is so arduous that not every great person has the capacity to traverse it, let alone the average; yet, as Mowlana says: The Beloved loves this disarray / Futile effort is better than lethargy.
In light of the above introduction, violence has no gender—man or woman, husband or wife. We are all prone to violence. As the esteemed late poet Hossein Monzavi said: [8] “I have blocked your path, you have blocked mine / There is no hope of escape when we are all walls.” We are either walls to one another or have the potential to become walls to others.
Violence is not only physical, such that it cannot be imagined or depicted for women. Violence has multiple instances, sometimes with far greater impact than physical violence. Verbal violence, negative violence—meaning indifference and disregard toward an individual—practical humiliation, and so on are examples of violence instances whose destructive and psychological effects are sometimes greater than physical violence.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can cases such as coldness in sexual relations, the wife’s use of vulgar language during sexual relations, and forcing the husband into certain positions in sexual relations be considered instances of sexual violence against the husband? What is its jurisprudential ruling?
Shafiei: Coldness in sexual relations, in itself or essentially, is not, in my opinion, violence; because violence appears to be a positive, active, action-oriented matter based on will, whereas coldness in sexual relations is involuntary, passive, etc. The use of vulgar language by the wife or husband—it makes no difference—during sexual relations, in my view, depends on intent and purpose to be considered violence or not.
Vulgar language, if intended to increase arousal for sexual relations or to create more enthusiasm for continuation, differs from when it is intended to belittle or insult, and this variety of intentions is detected by the woman and man; in other words, it is not typological but personal.
Forcing the husband into certain sexual positions, referred to as “sex positions,” has no meaning at least in traditional jurisprudence for women; because what is obligatory for the man is once every four months, and that too at the man’s discretion; moreover, sexual relations is a matter that does not accept coercion, although unfortunately this has not been attended to in traditional jurisprudence, and thus it has been defined by men as a permanent right, moment by moment, without regard to women’s psychological and mental readiness and without regard to place and time.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can humiliating the husband, comparing him to other men, threatening divorce, aggression, and verbal abuse against him be considered instances of verbal violence against the husband? What is its jurisprudential ruling?
Shafiei: The answer in general is yes. These are instances of verbal violence. Some of the matters in the question are ethical and fall outside the scope of traditional jurisprudence; for example, comparing the spouse to other men can be a form of verbal violence that can be ruled as non-valuable from an ethical origin and thus contradictory to ethical growth; but some instances, of course, fall under generalities in jurisprudence that naturally include these cases as well; for example, verbal abuse and insult, which jurists have deemed forbidden and in cases warranting hadd punishment.
Of course, threatening divorce has no substantial meaning at least in traditional jurisprudence where divorce is in the hands of men, although in statutory laws that have attempted to grant this right to women in certain cases, it can be raised and in this assumption can be one of the instances of violence.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given that cases of violence against men (physical and verbal) by women are not few, why is violence in marital relations interpreted solely as violence by men against women?
Shafiei: This point has reasons and causes: Violence against women is institutionalized; that is, traditional jurisprudence has provided grounds for legally applying violence to women, from beating women for nushuz to permitting polygamy, temporary marriage, etc., which are both a form of psychological pressure and spiritual violence for women and a violent tool in the hands of men for managing women.
Women are a gender vulnerable to harm, and the capacity for enduring violence is more readily available in them for multiple physical and psychological reasons.
Men, due to physical ability, are usually more suspected of abusing this ability and have been and are.
Violence by men is a trans-historical, trans-cultural, and trans-religious matter; that is, unfortunately, it has occurred throughout history, in all times, contexts, and cultures, and still does.
The traditional interpretation of men’s qiwamah has provided this capacity for men to perpetrate violence and for women to endure it.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: In Islamic jurisprudence and law, what supports have been provided for a man who has become a victim of violence by his wife?
Shafiei: Traditional jurisprudence, which according to some jurisprudential experts is entirely masculine, has risen to such defense of them that men themselves in the modern world have become advocates for the necessity of eliminating violence against women. There are numerous supports, both negative and positive, the most important of which can be enumerated as follows: Divorce is in the hands of of men, and according to the fatwas of traditional jurists, a man can resort to it without any reason or cause. Yes, divorce is a detestable and ugly matter, but it is a right in the hands of men.
Maintenance of the wife: A man can prove or even claim the wife’s nushuz and cut off her maintenance, and according to the opinion of some jurists, maintenance is only in exchange for tamkin.
Qiwamah over the wife to the extent that employment, education, and even visiting relatives are tied to the man’s permission.
Beating the wife. [9]
Psychological punishment of the wife, meaning reducing intimacy with the wife in specific states—and abandon them in bed—and in normal states to the minimum obligatory, i.e., once every four months.
Permission to kill an adulterous wife in a specific state without needing to refer to the court, which is a form of support for men to vent their violence upon seeing their wives in that specific state.
The command—though recommended—to obey men.
And…
[1] Krishnamurti, Beyond Violence, trans. Mohammad Ja‘far Mosaffa, p. 94.
[2] The myth of Cain killing Abel, which is also reflected in the Quran: And recite to them the story of Adam’s two sons, in truth, when they offered a sacrifice [to Allah], and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], “I will surely kill you.” Said [the former], “Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].” (Ma’idah, 27).
[3] This perspective can also be seen in Quranic literature: In the story of Adam (peace be upon him) in verse 30 of Surah Baqarah: And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.” They said, “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?” Allah said, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.”
[4] Hannah Arendt, Violence; trans. Ezzatollah Fouladvand, p. 10.
[5] Here, I am not theorizing violence but striving to understand and recognize this reality so that a remedy can be sought for it.
[6] Hannah Arendt, Violence; trans. Ezzatollah Fouladvand, p. 10.
[7] Ibid., pp. 92–93.
[8] From the murmur of my melancholy, from the clamor I am weary
Neither the endurance of silence, nor the capacity for speech do we have
It is the rubble of disarray, toward what shall I flee?
It is the tumult of bewilderment, to whom shall I entrust myself?
The agitation of a thousand “perhaps,” the obsession of a thousand “buts”
We are blind and do not see, otherwise we are all ill
The era of the garden’s splendor has faded from our memory
Today, row upon row, we are withered and barren
Alas that we wasted that precious essence
We are swords and do not cut, we are clouds and do not rain
We did not know ourselves, our awakening from sleep
They said you are awake, we said we are awake!
I have blocked your path, you have blocked mine
There is no hope of escape when we are all walls.
[9] …As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in bed and strike them… (Nisa’, verse 34).