Domestic violence in the Quran
February 14th, 2005
Does the Quran permit husbands to hit their wives, or not?
Summer Hathout is a prosecutor in Los Angeles, an activist for women's
rights, and a Muslim. She denies that Islam promotes domestic violence,
concluding in her short article:
To those of us who know Islam and the Quran, violence against women is so
antithetical to the teachings of Islam that we look at those who use our
religion against us as misguided, misinformed or malevolent.
On the other hand, Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this
issue. Scrolling three-fourths of the way down the link, the readers can
see
an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit
their
wives.
Where is the truth between the two extremes?
Unfortunately, the male Middle Eastern scholar is far closer to the truth
than the American female Muslim activist and apologist, for Sura 4:34 in
the
Quran indeed permits husbands to hit their wives, though the verse says
nothing about rods.
It is true, as Hathout notes, that all societies have domestic violence;
however, Islamic societies have it enshrined in their eternal word of
Allah,
unlike, say, the New Testament, which does not have even a faint hint of
it.
With such divine endorsement from Allah, can Islam reform on this matter?
To demonstrate how domestic violence is embedded in the Quran, this
article
follows a specific method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text) in
four
stages. First, translations from Muslim scholars are offered, so that
they,
not Westerners, speak for their own sacred text. Second, the historical
context and the literary context of the targeted verse are explained, so
the
life of Muhammad and the early Muslim community can shed some light on the
dubious practice. Besides clarifying the verse, this stage is also
designed
to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim
apologists. Third, we allow Muslims themselves to interpret the content of
the Quranic verse. This stage is subdivided between the early traditions
and
four modern commentators, including Hathout. Finally, we ask a few
questions
about Islam and the possibility of reform, pointing out that Christians
are
allowed to doubt whether God would send down such a verse, especially when
Islam claims to fulfill Christianity.
The first stage gives three Muslim translations of Sura 4:34, which should
be read carefully in order to understand the Muslims' interpretation at
the
fourth stage.
Egyptian-born M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, educated at Al-Azhar University, Cairo,
and Cambridge University and now professor of Islamic Studies at the
School
of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, translates for
Oxford
University Press (2004), as follows:
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties]
God
has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their
own
money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard
in the husbands' absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives,
remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed,
then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them.
God
is most high and great.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, a scholar working out of Lahore, Punjab, E. Pakistan,
began his translation in 1934 and revised it a third time by 1938. He
notes
in parenthesis, not original to the Arabic, the sequence of steps and the
implied soft meaning of "beat them (lightly)":
4:34 . . . As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and
ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds,
(and
last) beat them (lightly) . . . .
This sequence in Yusuf Ali's translation is im****tant for the Muslims'
interpretation, below, so readers should zero in on them now.
Ahmed Ali was an author of fiction, and he translates the relevant line
for
Princeton University Press (1984, rev. 1986), adding parenthetic glosses
not
originally found in Arabic:
4:34 As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave
them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when
they are willing).
This translation flatly contradicts the two others cited here and many
others: "beat" (Fakhry); "scourge" (Pickthall); "beat" (Dawood); "beat"
(lightly) (Hilali and Khan); "chastise" (Maulana); "chastise" (Khan);
"beat"
(Maududi); "beat" (Salahi and Shamis, Muslim translators of Sayyid Qutb);
"beat" (Committee of Muslim translators of Ibn Kathir); "beat" (Shakir);
and
"beat" (Asad, whom Hathout quotes in her article).*
In contrast, Ali's wording, which the activist and attorney Hathout
latches
on to despite the numerous translators who disagree with Ali and her,
reverses the plain meaning of the words by a clever linguistic
sleight-of-hand. We allow reputable Muslim scholars to challenge this
misinterpretation in the fourth stage, below. But for now it shows how far
some (not all) Muslim apologists will go to iron out the harsh words in
the
Quran.
The second stage in our exegetical method is to establish the historical
and
literary contexts of Sura 4:34.
According to Maududi, this sura, itself titled "Women," was revealed at
different times, but still in the timeframe of AD 625 to 626. Muhammad is
establi****ng his Muslim community in Medina in the face of opposition and
adverse cir***stances, though Islam manages to overcome them. Verse 34
fits
into the framework of vv. 1-35, which sees the specific establishment of
rules for the family. For instance, in the aftermath of the Battle of Uhud
in 625, in which the Muslims lost a lot of men, Muhammad says that orphans
should be given their property and not to replace their good things with
bad, which means to deal fairly and wisely with their assets (vv. 1-6).
Also, he discusses the rules for inheriting property, such as one son
having
the share equal to two daughters or that a husband should inherent half of
his wife's property, unless they have children, in which case he inherits
one-fourth (vv. 11-14). Then, if women or men in a segment of Muslim
society
commit lewd acts, they should be punished, unless they repent (vv. 15-18).
Next, a large section deals with marriage rules, like not marrying
mothers,
daughters, sisters and so on (vv. 19-28). Finally, he lays down rules
against greed and murder, and again returns to a law of inheritance (vv.
29-33).
Thus, it is in this family environment that the targeted v. 34 is located,
and Muhammad lays out yet one more rule in v. 34-how to deal with an
unruly
or rebellious wife.
The third stage is to interpret Sura 4:34, but we should let Muslims speak
for themselves about the troublesome verse, beginning with the earliest
traditions and ending with the modern era.
The early traditions confirm that hitting wives actually happened and was
sanctioned in Muhammad's day and in his community. Domestic violence runs
deeply and early in Islam, contrary to Hathout's apologetics.
Ibn Ishaq (c. 704-768), a biographer of Muhammad, who is considered mostly
reliable by modern historians (except for the miracles and some
chronology),
summarizes this part of Muhammad's sermon, which was delivered during his
last pilgrimage to Mecca and heard by thousands:
You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have
the
right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave
with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate
rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these
things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay
injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no
control of their own persons. (Guillaume's translation, p. 651)
This passage reveals that Muhammad sees the hitting of wives only in
egregious cir***stances, like defiling the marriage bed and "open
unseemliness." It also repeats the counsel that husbands should at first
separate from such wives and only afterwards apply physical force. Thus,
the
sequence in Ibn Ishaq's account and in Sura 4:34 overlap somewhat.
Bukhari (810-870) and Muslim (817-875) are two collectors and editors of
hadith (saying and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran) and are
considered completely reliable. They record this troubling pronouncement:
Abdallah b. Zama re****ted God's messenger [Muhammad] as saying, "None of
you
must whip his wife as a slave is whipped, and then have intercourse with
her
at the end of the day." A version has, "One of you has recourse to
whipping
his wife as a slave and perhaps he lies with her at the end of the day."
Does this hadith give permission or not? Is the husband allowed to whip
her,
except not as severely as a slave is whipped because a man's wife lives
and
has *** with him? Or does it prohibit whipping altogether? In any case, it
does not disconfirm, that hitting-if not whipping-is permitted.
Another collector and editor of hadith, Tirmidhi (821-894), a student of
Bukhari, though not having as high a status as his teacher, records this
tradition:
You have a right in the matter of your wives that they do not allow anyone
whom you do not like to come into your houses; if they do this, chastise
them in such a manner that it should not leave an impression.
Ibn Kathir, a Medieval commentator, references another passage from the
hadith editor Muslim. Muhammad says this at his farewell pilgrimage:
Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the
right
on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your
mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to discipline them lightly
.
.. . .
Ibn Kathir informs us that "discipline" entails the physical. Also, not
allowing anyone that a husband may dislike to step onto his mat is similar
to the previous hadith that says no man is allowed into the husband's
house
without his permission. Arab culture differs from ours, so in today's
world
this invitation to a man whom the husband does not like may amount to
inappropriate ***ual contact, even if the act is not committed.
All in all, the earliest traditions, representing others, allow husbands
to
hit their wives, so the difficulties in Sura 4:34 have an additional
historical context and cannot be explained away from that standpoint.
Domestic violence sits at the heart of Islam, not at its periphery.
We may now turn to four modern commentators, who seem uncomfortable with
Sura 4:34, so they react variously to explain it. They cannot bring
themselves to deny that it came down from God. Sometimes this section can
get a little technical, but the reader should bear with this because the
last three of the four interpreters reveal a larger agenda for
unsuspecting
Westerners who do not know the details of Islam.
After outlining the first two steps in the verse itself (admonition and no
***) and reminding husbands to administer the steps in pro****tion to the
offence and to do so only reluctantly, Maududi comes to the third step,
beating:
As to a beating, the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] allowed it very reluctantly
and
even then did not like it. But the fact is that there are certain women
who
do not mend their ways without a beating. In such a case, the Holy Prophet
has instructed that she would not be beaten on the face, or cruelly, or
with
anything which might leave a mark on the body.
Thus, Maududi's hesitations and qualifications around the sentence in bold
print make him seem embarrassed to apply this Quranic teaching.
Nevertheless, he sizes up the facts as he sees them: "certain women do not
mend their ways without a beating." So he is not entirely reluctant, after
all. Surely it is this archaic idea about women that permeates the Muslim
world. However, even if devout Muslims today do not go as far as Maududi,
how can they deny this verse as written, especially since they believe
that
God through Gabriel brought down the Quran?
What do two Muslim women interpreters think about this verse? Amina Wadud,
Islamic Studies Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious
Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, in her book Qur'an and Woman:
Reading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective (Oxford UP, 1999),
offers
her viewpoint.
Unwilling to deny the validity of such a dubious revelation as Sura 4:34,
she stretches credulity to get around the difficulties. She simply looks
up
in an Arabic lexicon the word daraba* used in the verse, which means "to
strike," and finds a context that suits her. So "to strike" does not
always
signify a physical hit, but may also mean "to strike out" on a journey (p.
76). However, this is a misuse of language, for the context and the
intent,
when they are as straightforward as those in Sura 4:34, must determine the
meaning of a word. Thus, when the context clearly says that husbands may
"strike" wives, it does not mean husbands may "strike out on a journey."
Ockham's razor, which says that the simplest and plainest explanation is
better than a convoluted one, applies to Sura 4:34, and that is why
numerous
translators cited above disagree with Wadud.
Hence, Wadud's doubtful interpretation indicates that she too, more so
than
Maududi, fluctuates between holding on to Sura 4:34 and dispensing with
it.
Her agenda guides her, rather than staying with the clear and plain
meaning
when the context and intent are straightforward.
Hathout is the second female commentator, but first we must challenge
Ahmed
Ali's odd translation, since it serves as the background to her
misinterpretation. He bases his clause "and go to bed with them (if they
are
willing)" instead of the more accurate "hit them" on the same shaky
reasoning that Wadud uses. He too goes to a dictionary and picks out a
context that suits him, noting that daraba metaphorically (key word) means
to have intercourse, as in his example "the stud camel covered [darab] the
she-camel." To back up this interpretation, he cites the ambiguous hadith
by
Bukhari and Muslim (see above) that questions whether a husband should hit
his wife, but he fails to cite other clear hadiths, such as the other one
by
Muslim (see above). Thus, reliable hadiths in fact sup****t hitting wives,
contrary to Ali's assertion in his notes.
Moreover, Ali's translation does not fit the clear meaning of the rest of
the verse, and this is why he must supply a false addition in parenthesis:
"(if they are willing)." But this confuses the sequence in 4:34 itself:
admonition, no ***, hitting. In Ali's sequence, in contrast, a husband
goes
from ignoring his wife in bed one moment, to having *** without her
repentance (admonition, no ***, ***). Rather, ***ual relations happen only
after the successful three-step process of dealing with a rebellious wife
and her repentance: admonition, no ***, hitting, repentance, ***. No
reputable scholar denies this sequence and the remedial purpose behind it;
hence the many translators cited above disagree with Ali, whose
translation
mixes up the order. Thus, like Wadud, he stretches credulity, for the
clear
and non-metaphorical meaning of daraba in this verse-not in other verses
in
the Quran nor in written records about the ***ual habits of camels in
seventh-century Arabia-is "to hit" or "to strike" wives. His agenda guides
him.
With Ali's mistranslation as the background, Hathout latches on to his
apologetics because it suits her ideology, even though many translators
disagree with Ali and her. Revealingly, she quotes him without the
parenthesis around the added words "if they are willing." Her omission
misleads the unsuspecting reader that the clause is original, whereas it
is
actually supplied by Ali in order to smooth over his jarring
mistranslation.
As noted, according to the clear and straightforward three-step process in
Sura 4:34, daraba does not mean metaphorically "to have ***," but
literally
"to strike" or "to hit." Ockham's razor should again cut away convoluted
misinterpretations.
Hathout presents Islam only in the best possible light to Americans, even
though this entails breaking down the natural interpretation of Sura 4:34,
and even though numerous other translations by Muslim scholars, hadiths,
and
commentators contradict Ali's and her misinterpretation. Her agenda guides
her. Contrary to her thesis that domestic violence emerged outside of
Islam
as a struggle of the power elites to control things, seeds of violence
have
been planted in the very heart and core of the Quran and Muhammad himself.
These seeds have grown up within Islam; they have not been transplanted to
it.
Haleem, whose translation we used above in our first stage, is the last of
our modern Muslim scholars to interpret Sura 4:34 in his Understanding the
Quran (2001). Unlike Wadud, Ali, and Hathout, he analyzes the verse head
on
without forcing the natural meaning into an artificial or convoluted one.
After elaborating on the three-step process found in Sura 4:34 itself
(admonition, no ***, hitting), he concludes that husbands should not hit
their wives for any ad hoc reason, according to the husbands' whim or
angry
outburst, but only for the wives' outright unseemly, lewd behavior (the
first part of v. 34). And hitting should be used only after the first two
remedial steps have been tried and only once, lightly.
Despite Haleem's excellent exegetical method that reaches an honest but
troubling conclusion (unlike Hathout's weak exegesis and whitewashed
conclusion), we may ask the same question that many Muslim scholars ask
rhetorically, according to his quotation of them: "if the Quranic teaching
in this matter is not fair and sensible, then what are the alternatives?"
(p. 55). This is indeed the right question, but Haleem's answer falls
short
of the mark:
Surely it is better to remind the wife of her duty, or sulk for a while,
or
even strike her lightly, and then bring in arbiters who could, if all
attempts at reconciliation fail, rule in favor of divorce [in Sura 4:35].
(p. 55)
However, a more acceptable alternative runs as follows: the first step
(admonition) is a sound one; the second step (no ***) may be sound, if the
wives are indeed committing ***ual acts outside of the marriage; yet the
third step (hitting) is completely wrong and immoral in all cases, no
matter
how lightly administered, so it can be omitted; and the fourth and fifth
steps in v. 35 (arbitration and maybe divorce as a last resort) are sound,
though the divorce would be sad. This is the alternative that Haleem and
the
Muslim scholars are looking for: husbands should never hit their wives for
any reason; they should take out the third step.
We now reach the fourth and final stage in our exegetical method, applying
the issue of domestic violence in Islam to today.
Are they willing to take out the third step when it is explicit in the
Quran?
Like Maududi, Wadud, Ali, and Hathout, Haleem and his quoted Muslim
scholars
are reluctant to question the validity of this Quranic revelation. As
Hathout notes in her article, Muslims believe that Allah through Gabriel
brought down the eternal Quran to Muhammad; it is a blessing to all
societies today, for its many verses reflect Allah's universal truths.
Therefore, Muslim scholars are unwilling not only to deny the inspiration
of
such verses as 4:34, but also to interpret them as fitting only within
Seventh Century Arabia and hence as irrelevant for today. Apparently, with
such a rigid, absolutist, and unrealistically high view of Quranic
inspiration, this would create too much cognitive dissonance for Muslims
with an agenda.
To reform, however, one must confront problems head on, not pretend that
they do not exist, or explain them away. But if these scholars are
reluctant
and even defend or explain away sacred verses by unnatural linguistic
contortions, what about ordinary Muslims, and especially what about
fanatics? Surely they too would be hesitant. The twisted theology of the
Islamic scholar holding up sample rods is the inevitable result for
fanatics, and divinely endorsed domestic violence is the inevitable result
in the average household.
However, if Muslims are reluctant to reform or to deny passages in the
Quran, they must avoid a dubious approach to uninformed Westerners: they
must never soft-sell or whitewash domestic violence and other violence in
the origins and core of their religion, some of which, like jihad,
Muhammad
himself engaged in-not in the periphery of their religion, as Hathout and
Ahmed Ali inaccurately assert or imply. An agenda to make Islam-flaws and
all-seem acceptable to Westerners is wrong.
And Muslims should not be surprised if Christians challenge the claim that
Islam and the Quran complete and fulfill Christianity and the New
Testament.
Christians are allowed to ask, without undergoing the accusation of being
"misguided, misinformed or malevolent" (Hathout's words), whether God
would
send down a revelation that promotes domestic violence in a later sacred
text, when their own New Testament rightly and justly omits this.
Therefore, hitting or beating wives in Sura 4:34 is a gigantic social and
cultural step backwards and challenges whether God through Gabriel brought
down the Quran in the first place so late in history, after the love of
God
was shown through Christ. He never said that husbands should hit their
wives, and neither did the New Testament authors.
*Three Western translators have the following for the three-consonant root
d-r-b (daraba) in Sura 4:34: "scourge" (Rodwell); "beat" (Arberry); and
"spank" (!) (Cleary).
Jim Arlandson (PhD) teaches world religions and introductory philosophy at
a
college in southern California. He has written a book, Women, Class, and
Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997)
James Arlandson
|
