“And Beat Them” They Say “So Says the One Who Calls Himself the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate!” Does He?
By Dr Aslam Abdullah
Las Vegas, Nevada
Note: This article is based on an analysis of the translation of verse 34, chapter 4 of the Qur’an. The translations used for analysis are included in the appendix. However, the work of famous commentators of the Qur’an are quoted extensively.
Introduction
If there is one ayah (verse) in the Qur’an that may decide the future understanding of Islam as a religion of peace, compassion, kindness and mercy for Muslims as well as non-Muslims, it is the ayah (verse) number 34 that appears in its fourth surah (chapter).
The verse translated by one of the most popular translators of the Qur’an Abdullah Yusuf Ali reads as follows: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. 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); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all) (4:34)
The surah is titled Nisa or women. The ayah deals with family relations primarily between husbands and wives. Its prevalent understanding among Muslims, both Arabic-speaking and non-Arabic-speaking, has, throughout the history of Islam, impacted the status of women, their role in the family and society and their relations with their spouses especially in situations of conflict. Even though the verse relates to the relation between husbands and wives, yet it has serious implications for women in their roles as mothers, sisters, daughters, in-laws and members of their community.
This ayah is generally quoted by Muslim men to prove their superiority, while many women often refer to this verse as the one that legitimizes their second class status in their family and community under the will of Allah. “What can we do when the will of Allah is to make us dependent on men,” this is the typical response of an average Muslim woman.
With the knowledge of the Qur’anic text becoming widely prevalent and with women and men becoming part of an economic system that requires the skills and services of the two to an ever evolving and changing world and with both Muslim men and women relating directly with their scriptures as the source of divine guidance, many questions are being raised about the interpretations of the verse in Arabic as well as in other languages.
Many Muslim and non-Muslim women definitely feel uncomfortable for the prevalent understanding of the ayah that a great majority of scholars have handed them down for centuries and men, conscious of their responsibilities towards their creator, might feel embarrassed for the so-called privileges accorded to them.
Women often ask the following questions:
Does their God require them to be submissive and subservient to their husbands in particular and men in general? Do they have to be obedient to their husbands all the time, or sometime? If so, what does that obedience mean, what are the limits and who would determine them? In case of conflict and irreconcilable differences between the spouses, will they, all the time, be at the mercy of men or their husbands who have the permission or the authority to strike, hit, punish, beat or scourge them? Will men always decide and determine what the marriageable age of a woman is? Does their value lie in their ability only to procreate and to provide sexual satisfaction to their husbands? Are they a thing created to serve men’s sexual pleasures? Do their conjugal responsibilities require them to be always ready to serve their husbands? Will they always be at the mercy of husbands to express their identity and abilities? How will they face the women of other faiths who would always view them a target of possible beating at the hands of their husbands for any act of disobedience? Is this an institutionalized inequality that will last until the eternity? Does Allah want women to live with this fear for ever, the fear of being beaten by their husbands or men at home or in public for their deviations? Will this status impact their relations with their children, especially boys who would feel that like their fathers, they too have a right to control and discipline their wives? What about the daughters who would also grow up in an environment of intimidation and fear?
Muslim men often also ask some of the following questions.
Why their physical strength is considered a source of authority rather than an instrument of responsibility? Does it mean that those who are physically stronger have more rights over those who are physically weaker? If they spend their earnings on their spouses does it mean that they own them and should be considered their masters or owners? Why should they be given the right to use physical violence to discipline their wives or female members of their family or community in case of conflict with them? Must their wives always remain subservient to them? Do they not have an independent identity? Is it their right to demand sex from their wives always? Will their wives have any say in matters pertaining to physical intimacy or are they at the mercy of their masters? If so, what about love, compassion, kindness and compatibility? Is the purpose of marriage only to serve a husband’s sexual desires and procreate his progeny? Whose interpretation of the Qur’an they should follow in understanding this verse? Are angles so obsessed with the male sexual desires that they would curse a woman if she refuses sexual intimacy with her husband during the night? Are women really created in a state of immaturity and inferiority and are deficient in intellect as suggested in many of the statements people have attributed to the Prophet? Are they just a rib for their husbands? If so, why has the society always relied solely on their skills to raise a new generation?
Non-Muslims also ask:
The questions asked by non-Muslims might be different as they may try to understand the rationale of beating wife in maintaining a household together. Does the one who bestows mercy to all assigns the woman a role only to please men? Does He give men authority over women despite the claims of equality among genders? Does He empower men with the right to beat a woman if he considers her to be in defiance of his authority? Is the Qur’an really a revealed document or was it the product of a specific time and culture? Was the purpose of the Qur’an to create a new social order or to perpetuate the age-old patriarchy where women were always at the mercy of men? Will women ever achieve self-dignity in Islam?
Methodology
The following discussion looks at the prevalent understanding of the ayah as explained by various translators and commentators of the Qur’an , both classical and modern and analyzes its linguistic understanding within the overall message of the Qur’an and compares the two with some of the authentic sayings of the Prophet to make an attempt to arrive at an alternative meaning.
The perspective of the article is simple. The overwhelming majority of both classical and modern scholars have relied on an explanation that gives more credence to the norms of patriarchy rather than the intent of the divine guidance in matters pertaining to family relations. These scholars have selectively used the statements attributed to Prophet Muhammad to supplement their arguments about male superiority. They have often ignored the uswa or the character and lifestyle of the Prophet as is explained in the Qur’an and several of the authentic ahadith (words and actions attributed to the Prophet). In this effort, they have created several contradictions within their own writings and promoted a view that defies the spirit of the Qur’an. The article concludes that there has been a grave error on the part of a majority of interpreters of the Qur’an in developing a rational, objective, logical and humane understanding of the verse within the overall context of the divine message. Rather than looking at the Qur’anic message within the context of the divine guidance as a whole, the scholars, by and large, have used the verse to understand the situation within a male-dominated context with a view to promoting male domination in the name of God.
Anatomy of the Verse
Most commentators and translators have concluded that the verse refers to a man’s right to beat his woman if she defies him. But they do not explain what do they mean by men and women? They are also confused about the nature of defiance. They also show contradictions in narrating the historical context in which the verse was revealed. But what they are certain, despite all these uncertainties, is that the verse establishes the rule of male supremacy over women.
Interestingly, the verse does not talk about male supremacy. It even does not talk about beating or disciplining wives, rather, it explains a methodology to resolve differences within a family in a non-violent and peaceful manner maintaining the dignity of everyone involved in the dispute. It does not give authority to a husband over his wife and it does not elevate him to a status of a master or owner or in charge. On the contrary, it gives reassurance of the sincerity of women in maintaining their integrity in family matters.
Many scholars usually justify the provision of beating and refer to this verse as a directive to promote balance and justice in the family and society. They argue that if the defiance of a wife is not responded properly by the husband through a process involving advice, sexual neglect and beating, families might disintegrate and lose their essence. They say that peace comes only when there is an authority to impose or implement it. In order to avoid chaos in family matters, God has made the husband head of the family and the wife subservient. Ironically, they expand this role of the husband to the society and then argue to empower every male to exercise authority over women in general.
How could one talk of balance and justice if within the basic human unit, the family, one spouse has more physical and financial advantage over the other as well as the right to use force to maintain his authority? How could one talk of peace with the threat of being beaten? Who is there to determine the level of disciplining and stop the man from exercising his right to beat in an arbitrary manner? Who is there to monitor the level of beating? What is the objective criterion to determine the scope and nature of beating and why beating is considered a solution to the problem? No religious authority is present when the beating is performed and who can stop a husband in his moment of rage?
The argument that force or the threat of the use of force is a deterrent for any deviant behavior or action may be considered valid in case of a state because citizens relate with each other in an impersonal manner. They follow laws that are chosen by them. The state offers a system of check and balance that is necessary to maintain order in the society. The state through the collective will of people decides the process of check and balance and the deterrent. In a despotic system, the checks and balances are created by an individual to protect his interests. In a democratic system, people decide the deterrent.
In a divinely ordained system, it is the principle of justice and the concept of equality that are the foundation for voluntarily regulating human behavior as the divine powers cannot be transferred to any human being.
But a family is not a mini-state as argued by many of the commentators of the Qur’an with a ruler and subjects. A family comes into being on the foundations of love and mercy and grows on the strength of truthfulness and compassion. If the husband is given arbitrary and exclusive authority to determine the level of defiance from his wife and punishment, then the very existence of the family is endangered. Who is there to check a husband in his moments of anger and rage over the perceived defiance of his wife and how would anyone stop him from beating his wife in the privacy of his home away from the previews of religious scholars, law enforcement agents or the members of the family? Will the threat of further violence not prevent wives to speak up? What is defiance? The idea of the use of force and beating in one to one relations never produces positive results as no self-respecting individual would feel dignified after being beaten or living under the threat of being beaten even if the beating is done with a toothpick or a handkerchief as many scholars suggest was the advice of Prophet Muhammad. The physical injuries from beating may heal, but the emotional, social, and moral scars such a beating leaves on human souls stay permanently. Didn’t the divine, the creator of human emotions, know this basic fact of His creation?
The idea of using physical force within family relations is unthinkable for its stability and durability. Certainly, the divine who created men and women knew that and the intent in the revelation of this verse was not what the scholars have communicated but what has been lived by the Prophet.
Scholars accept the statement attributed to Hazrat Aisha, wife of the Prophet, in which she said that the Prophet was a living Qur’an. It means that he lived each and every verse of the Qur’an. There is not a single instance in the life of the Prophet where violence or beating may have ever become his option. The fact of the matter is that the Prophet never thought of hitting his wives or even speaking with them in an intimidating manner. Thus, it is his behavior and example as well as the divine intent that defines this verse and not the opinions or interpretations of the scholars who are not sure of the real context of this verse, and not sure about its exact meanings, and who are still uncertain about the definition of defiance.
Certainly, the dignity of humanity cannot be left at the mercy of scholars who often find it hard to respect the dignity of those who oppose them, and who often compromise their positions for personal gains. (Continued next week)
