An-Nisa, 34


 * ''This is a sub-article of an-Nisa

In the Qur'an, verse 34 of Surah an-Nisa (abbreviated as 4:34) concerns the issue of marital relations in Islam. This verse is interpreted by some Muslims as giving women complete control over their own income and property, while obliging men to be responsible for maintaining their female relatives. Muslim scholars (or 'jurists') debate whether or not the text allows for Muslim men to strike their wives. Some Muslims, such as Islamic feminist groups, argue that Muslim men use the text as an excuse for domestic violence.

Traditions attributed to Muhammad
Muslim scholars cite sayings and traditions of Muhammad in relation to this verse.

The most perfect believer in faith is one who is the best of them in good conduct. The best of you is one who treats best with his wife among you."

Background on the roles of men and women in Islam
The Qur'an states that men are the guardians of women, and thus responsible for earning livelihood for the family and female relatives. Women, however, are given complete control over their own income and property. Nevertheless, they are responsible for educating the children, as God has given the one preference over the other. Man is also considered to be the head of the family. The Qur'an recommends that wives be obedient and adaptable to their husbands. Wives should also keep the secrets of their husbands and protect their honor and integrity. Islamic scholars consider this important in running a smooth family system.

Iranian feminists have concentrated on one particular verse of the Qur’an, part of which reads `Men are the protectors of and maintainers of women because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means’. Feminist theologians in Iran argue that as the only distinction made between Muslims in the Qur’an is that between the pious and the impious, the word taken to mean `protectors and providers’ in the verse above is more appropriately interpreted as initiator in affairs’.

For both men and women, zulm- known in English as actions of 'cruelty' against someone- is explicitly prohibited.

Descriptions
""Men are (meant to be righteous and kind) guardians of women because God has favored some more than others and because they (i.e. men) spend out of their wealth. (In their turn) righteous women are (meant to be) devoted and to guard what God has (willed to be) guarded even though out of sight (of the husband). As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) leave them alone in beds (and last) beat or separate them (from you). But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, God is most high and great."

- Translation by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

- Translation from Sahih International, at Quran.com

Qanitat
The verse commands women to be qanitat. The term has been used in Quran 33:35 to refer to men and women alike, who are obedient to God. Some commentators use the term to mean obedience to the husband, while others assert that it means obedience to God. All scholars agree that the husband does not have absolute control over his wife, and her first loyalty is to God.

Nushûz
The term "nushûz" (نُشُوز) is translated as "disloyalty and ill-conduct" by Yusuf Ali, "rebellion" by Pickthall and "desertion" by Shakir. Other scholars have drawn on hadiths to interpret the meaning of the word.

says:

The literal meaning of the word is "rebellion". But rebellion against whom and in what sense? We should certainly not think of this in terms the rebellion of the ruled against a ruler in a sultanate or dictatorship and conclude that it consists of the wife disobeying some of the husband's commands. This is because the same word nushuz is used in case of a husband in verse 128 of the same surah 4, where it is said: "If a woman fears nushuz on her husband's part..." So nushûz is something that can be feared by the husband on the wife's part or by the wife on her husband's part. It cannot therefore be understood in terms of the ruler-ruled relationship. To correctly understand the meaning of the word, it must be noted that both in the verse under consideration and in verse 128 the reference to nushuz is followed by a reference to the break-up of the marriage (see vv. 35, 130). If this context is kept in mind, then it becomes evident that nushuz means the type of behavior on the part of the husband or the wife which is so disturbing for the other that their living together becomes difficult. ...In short, nushûz is a behavior on the part of one marriage partner which comes out of ill-will and seriously disturbs the other partner.

Muhammad Asad notes that Muhammad stipulated in The Farewell Sermon that "beating should be resorted to only if the wife 'has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct'.

Debates and discussion about the text
In response to nushûz, admonishment, leaving wives in their beds and idribihunna are permitted. Islamic scholars agree such actions can not be undertaken for any reason other than those mentioned in the Qur'an (see nushûz). Muslim scholars also hold that this response is only permitted only if the husband has fulfilled his obligations, both those required of him by the Quran and those in stipulated in the marriage contract.

Admonishing and separation in bed
The first response to nushuz is wā'z (‘وَعَظ’), meaning to first admonish or scold the wife of her behaviour. There is strong agreement amongst Muslim scholars that this admonishment must be conducted in a spirit of reconciliation. Should the nushuz continue, the next step is to refuse to share the bed with the wife. Again Muslim scholars emphasize on the spirit of healing while conducting this action.

Interpretations of the Qur'an also reflect the order of the actions prescribed in 4:34: "As to those women on whose part you see 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). Surely, God is Ever Most High, Most Great.'"

iḍribūhunna
The word iḍribūhunna comes from the root daraba (Arabic: ضرب). The word has been used many times in the Quran to mean: to hit, to travel the earth, to set up, to condemn and to give examples. Thus scholars interpret iḍribūhunna differently. Whereas many interpret it to mean "to strike lightly", others hold that the term means "to separate". Such an action is to be administered only if neither the husband nor the wife are willing to divorce. In the context of this verse, iḍribūhunna has also been interpreted to mean "go to bed with them", the Arabic root word "daraba" being taken from the prosaic example "the stud-camel covered the she-camel".

Muslim scholars who permit hitting, emphasize that it must not be harsh, but rather light. Muslim men are never to hit their spouse's face, nor to leave hit them in such a way as would leave marks on their body. Scholars suggest that the response administered should be in proportion to the fault committed. Traditionally the idea of beating was "with a toothbrush" or "with a folded handkerchief."

Many jurists interpret iḍribūhunna as "more or less symbolic." Others, however, argue that a mere symbolic administration would be pointless and rather should be an "energetic demonstration" of the love of the husband. But it is agreed that the demonstration should not seriously hurt the wife.

The 2007 translation The Sublime Quran by Laleh Bakhtiar translates iḍribūhunna not as 'beat them' but as 'go away from them'. The introduction to her translation discusses the linguistic and shari‘ah reasons in Arabic for understanding this verb in context. The Prophet never beat his wives, and his example from the Sunnah informs the interpretation of this verse. This interpretation is supported by the fact that some other verses, such as 4:101 which contains word darabtum (derivation from daraba), demonstrate also the interpretation of Arabic word daraba to have meaning 'going' or 'moving'.

The book Woman in the Shade of Islam by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha stated that a man may "beat" his wife only if it occurs without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost." American Muslim preacher Sheik Yusuf Estes has stated that men can give "a crack" used by things such as a yardstick or a rolled up newspaper.

A widely used 1930 English translation of the Koran by British Muslim scholar Marmaduke Pickthall determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can "scourge" their wives. He did not view a form physical contact as the correct understanding of the text.

Other perspectives on idribihûnna
Some jurists argue that even when hitting is acceptable under the Qur'an, it is still discountenanced. Furthermore, the Qur'an commands husbands to be kind to their wives.

Furthermore, some jurists argue, the woman is not required to accept her husband's punishment, and the wife can divorce anytime. The wife can also take the husband to court, should he abuse her. If the case is decided in her favor, she has the right to retaliate against her husband.

In his book No god but God, University of Southern California scholar Reza Aslan, stated that false interpretations of the text have occurred because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men."

The Prophet Mohammed himself, according to Islamic tradition, never once struck a woman in argument. This fact is sometimes cited in debates about the text.

Muslim feminist writer Asra Q. Nomani has argued: "Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call "the 4:34 dance" -- they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence."

American author and commentator Robert Spencer has described Quran 4:34 as a "notorious verse commanding the beating of disobedient women" in FrontPage Magazine. He has argued that it promotes a demeaning culture of violence against women.