Does the Qur’an allow wife beating?
One of the most controversial passages of the Qur’an is found in Surah 4:34. Here is a translation of it from the ‘Message of the Qur’an’ by Allama Muhammad Asad:
MEN SHALL take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter. and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
SURAH AN NISA, QUR’AN 4:34
The above translation is more accurate than most. It correctly identifies that men’s responsibilities to care and provide for women are being stressed here, not the superiority of one gender over the other.
It also avoids the mistake of considering the word here translated as ‘devout’ as meaning obedience to husbands. Rather it refers to God-consciousness and religious devotion.
AN EXPLANATION OF SOME MISUNDERSTOOD TERMS
Dr Ahmad Shafaat explains the relevant terms as follows:
The verse begins with the statement that “men are qawwamun over women“.
The root of the key word, qawwamun (pl. of qawwam), is qama which means “to stand or to make something stand or to establish something”
...Thus to be a qawwam over something or someone is to guard, maintain or take care of that something or someone in a proper and fair manner. If there is any single word in English that can convey the meaning of the word as used in the present word it is probably the one used by Muhammad Pickthal, namely, guardian.
The first reason then why men are qawwamun over women is their physical ability to protect women. The second is that “they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth.”
Although the Holy Qur’an permits women to earn and own wealth, it expects that men will generally be able to earn more than women because of the natural differences between them. This means that they will generally be responsible for the economic needs of women and this responsibility also makes them qawwamun.
What is the woman’s role in this relationship? A brief statement follows about this in the verse:
“The righteous women are devout (qanitat) and guard what Allah has willed to be guarded even though out of sight.”
Qanit means one who is devoted to someone and out of love and devotion obeys him or her. Outside of the present verse the word in its various forms, occurs seven times and is used of both men and women.
In six out of these seven places, the object of devotion and obedience is understood to be God, in one place it is God and His Messenger. For this reason qanitat may simply mean “devoted to God”.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/dv-4-34-shafaat.html
ILL WILL OR NUSHUZ
From the foregoing we have learned that:
- The verse does not say men are superior to women. It says they are to care, protect and maintain them.
- It mentions that men are obliged to spend from their own resources upon their women, due to their (generally) greater capacity for paid employment, especially where manual or physical labour is concerned.
- It mentions that women are expected to guard their chastity and their property even when their menfolk are not around. They should do this out of devotion towards God.
Now comes the ‘problematic’ or rather misunderstood part of the verse:
…And as for those women whose NUSHUZ you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then DARABA them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
The word Nushuz is translated as ‘ill-will’ by Asad. In context, the meaning clearly implies the women who do not guard their chastity in the absence of their husbands. Dr Abdel Haleem writes:
It is clear that the contrast in this passage between the first and second type of women cannot be disregarded.
If we say now, ‘Good students attend regularly and submit their essays on time; as for others, they may be warned and barred from entering the exam’, the others must be understood in contrast with those who are said to attend and submit essays.
Similarly, the second class of wives here is the opposite of those who are devoutly obedient to God and guarding their private parts, which God has ordered to be guarded. So what we have here is a woman whose husband fears her unfaithfulness and disregard for the commands of God.
Marriage and Divorce
This is a vital point to grasp. The remedial steps, including striking, that follow are ONLY with regards to women who are not guarding their chastity when ‘out of sight’. This verse is not about women who ‘rebel’ against male authority as some translations imply.
IDRUBOOHUNNA -Qur’an Wife Beating?
The Qur’an verse 4:34 gives the following three steps, in cases where women are acting in a way that justifies fears that they are behaving unchastely:
- Advise them.
- Leave them in their bed chambers.
- ‘Idroobunna’ – literally ‘strike’ or ‘hit them’
With regards to step three, traditionalist scholars have emphasised the Hadith that disapprove of any violence against women in the strongest terms.
They have also noted that the Prophet (saw) is reported only to have allowed this step in case of open disloyalty on the part of the wife, and not as a general remedy for marital misconduct.
Furthermore, from the earliest scholars onwards this has only been seen as symbolic act in view of the Prophet prohibiting from beating women ‘in a way that hurts them’. For most scholars they regard the Qur’an wife beating verse as merely indicating permission to tap with tooth-stick or with a folded handkerchief.
Muhammad Asad explains:
It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one’s wife, and said on more than one occasion, “Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” (Bukhari and Muslim).
According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, “Never beat God’s handmaidens” (Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn ‘Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum).
When the above Qur’an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: “I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing – and what God has willed must be best” (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife “has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct”, and that it should be done “in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)”; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da’ad, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah.
On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this “beating”, if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic – “with a toothbrush, or some such thing” (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even “with a folded handkerchief” (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi’i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet’s personal feelings with regard to this problem.
‘The Message of The Qur’an’
COULD IT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE?
Some non-traditionalist commentators, especially those of a Quranist bent, have sought to offer alternative interpretations. For instance, Joseph A. Islam considers it to mean ‘shun or turn away’. Others such as Edip Yuksel consider it to mean ‘strike them out’ i.e. turn them out of their homes. Given the root word contains a plethora of secondary and metaphorical meanings, such interpretations are not totally far fetched.
Yet, to my mind, the single biggest problem with these reinterpretations is that there is no explanation for why God would not use other words to express ‘shunning’ or ‘striking out’ that do not have any connotions of physical reprimand.
In view of this, I am disinclined to accept these attempts to assign a different meaning to ‘daraba’. In this context. It almost certainly does refer to ‘hitting’ or ‘striking’ and not anything else.
However this does not mean the Qur’an allows wife beating.
The vital thing is to determine whom it is the verse is actually addressing?
WHO IS THE ADDRESSEE?
Whilst I broadly agree with some aspects of the traditional interpretation of the verse, yet there are several problematic elements that need further clarification.
- Given the fact that husbands might resort to such violence, without any basis, simply on the basis of unfounded suspicion it seems odd for the Qur’an to extend such untrammeled authority to the husband. Given the fact that many men are serial abusers, one cannot imagine that such a power would be given to them unless important safeguards were in place. No such mechanisms are apparent in the verse.
- The Qur’an asserts that husbands and wives are expected to live in mutual love and harmony (30:21). Men are commanded to treat women kindly and to be patient with their wives even if they dislike them (4:19). Moreover even in the case of a marital breakdown, men are strictly forbidden from causing women any distress (2:231). Even when infedelity takes place, the Qur’an does not indicate any step the husband can take beyond asking her to leave (65:1). The apparent right to discipline given here, sits uncomfortably with all these verses and more.
- The very next verse (4:35) urges the addressee to take an arbiter from both parties families, to try to reconcile the spouses. This indicates the pronoun ‘you‘ in these verses, is referring to the State Authority or Courts, not to the husband himself.
- It is hard to see how a totally symbolic act of violence like hitting with a tooth-stick would be in any way effective in a situation where there is complete marital breakdown.
- It makes little sense to allow the husband to carry out all these steps on his own peregotive, and only involve arbiters when the threshold of physical chastisement has been crossed, and has failed.
- If we are talking about a woman given to sexual misconduct, how could a boycott in the bedroom do anything but make it more likely that she re-offends?
It is thus plain, that the addressee of the verse cannot be the husband in the context of his wife’s misbehaviour.
So, who is being addressed? And what is being commanded?
Solving The Puzzle of Qur’an wife beating?
After much researching, I am personally convinced by the understanding of this verse advocated by Ibn Ashur, Shaykh Khalid Abou El Fadl and Dr Shabir Ally.
Shaykh Ibn Ashur, was a great Tunisian Scholar and commentor on the Qur’an in the early twentieth century. He correctly observed that the verse took all power of disciplining out of the hands of husbands and left it to the discretion of the courts:
Ibn Ashur argues that the sole addressee of 4:34 and 4:35 was the court
authorities.In most societies, he explained, no license can be given to husband’s to discipline their wives violently.
This is clear if one applied
Shariah procedure at a family level, for only in exceptional circumstances
can a person involved in a case also act as the judge who decides guilt and
metes out punishment.In addition, experience shows that husbands cannot
Dr Jonathan Brown ‘Misquoting Muhammad’, pg. 280
be trusted to restrain themselves in private. Even if they are told that they
can only use light blows, husbands will inevitably ‘quench their anger’ and
In all likelihood transgress the limits.’ In urbanized societies and modern
states, which enjoy functioning legal systems, Ibn ‘Ashur suggests that
the whole verse is addressed to the state and the organs of the court. The
authorities (wulat al-umur) are obligated to announce that any man who
beats his wife will be punished and assign the duty of disciplining wives
to the courts alone. It is the Shariah court judge who hears complaints of
a wife’s unacceptable conduct. If she is guilty, the judge admonishes her,
separates the couple if necessary and finally orders a beating administered
should she refuse to reform
Shaykh Khalid Abou El Fadl suggests a similar interpretation:
Alternatively, 4:34 is not addressed to husbands at all but to the state. Meaning, if there is an allegation of a grave and known sin and it is proven by the resolution of a court, a separation or corporal punishment may be ordered. In case of a disagreement not involving a grave and known sin, an arbitration may be ordered. In other words, the remedy is not left to the discretion of husbands but is given to a court. Nothing in 4:34 necessitates that the remedy be in private hands, for history and creation have shown that when it comes to punishment husbands are hardly the ones to be trusted.
Excerpt by Khaled Abou El Fadl: “On The Beating of Wives”
Dr Shabir Ally also reads verse 4:34 and 4:35 as both being addressed to the Courts or State Authorities and consequently rejects the implication that any permission is given to the husband in the Qur’an for wife beating. See his views here, especially from 6:00 onwards.
CONCLUSION
Quran 4:34 refers to a situation where a marriage is threatened by the lewd behaviour of a woman.
In such a case, the court or state authority can issue a warning, order a separation or confinement in a room, or a physical strike. The husband is not authorised to do any of this himself, nor is he addressed by these verses.
Quran 4:35 then goes on mention that if such allegations cannot be established, the court is to appoint arbiters from both sides to try and repair the relationship.
The context and wording of the Qur’an rule out any form of domestic violence.
Categorically, the Qur’an forbids wife-beating.