March 17, 2009 by Leyla Jagiella
A controversial verse. Too often it has been used to legitimize domestic violence against women in Islam, too often it has been used to claim that Islam as such legitimizes such violence.
Others, like Laleh Bakhtiar or Edip Yüksel, try to posit a new translation of this verse. One that does not translate the verb daraba as “to hit, to punish” but simply as “to separate, to go away etc.”.
I would be more than happy to agree with the translations that Bakhtiar, Yüksel and some others give.
But, honestly, I can´t.
The problem is that to me it seems pretty forced and looks like a try of, as others have termed it, “whitewashing” the Quran.
It is true that in some instances in the Quran daraba does not mean “to punish” but e.g. “to separate”.
Unfortunately, in all occasions in which it does the verb comes with very specific post- or prepositions which are definitely lacking in 4/34.
Without these post- or prepositions the apparent Quranic use of the verb always implies an act of force, though not necessarily in the direct physical sense!
Other translators and commentators have however made the useful observation that the verb daraba always implies a singular and unrepeated onetime act of force, physical or other.
In contrast to this, to imply subsequent physical beatings the form darraba would correctly be used.
And while we have unsettling interpretations of men like Al-Ghazali or At-Tabari who indeed understood the verb as legitimizing physical violence against women, their understanding of the word had always been open to dispute, even in the classical times.
Alternative understandings have always been available.
Aside from that I would like to point out that to me the decisive word for the right understanding of this verse is not daraba but nushûz.
The word is often translated as “rebellion” etc. and when 4/34 is taken out of context it may thus indeed give the impression that according to the Quran women are commanded to obey their husbands in any case and when they do not it is legitimate to use violence against them.
But within the context of chapter 4 of the Quran such an understanding is total nonsense!
Nushûz is indeed an act of rebellion. But not in the sense of not agreeing with someone but in the sense of unrightfully setting oneself above others and their rights.
That is actually the direct meaning of the word.
The main topic of the chapter 4 of the Quran is marital and social harmony and the ethical duties, rules and laws that should be obeyed to keep this harmony intact.
This topic is also the context in which verse 34 appears.
In that context 4/34 does tell a wife to not unrightfully set herself above her husband and disobey the rules of harmony, otherwise her husband has the right to take consequences from that.
However, only some very few verses later, in 4/128, we are told that nushûz, abusing his wife and ignoring her rights, is also forbidden to the husband!
Nushûz is not a specific female crime, like some kind of anti-patriarchal disobedience.
Men can be as guilty of it and consequently women also have the right to take action against it.
4/128 also tells us that instead of falling into nushûz and to counter it both husband and wife should try to restore the sulh (harmony, just peace, balance) in their relationship.
4/34 does specify the cconsequences that the husband may take from his wife´snushûz.
Admonition, denying cozy company and force are the three steps that he can take, one after the other.
The Quran does not directly limit the cause that the wife may take or may not take in the case of her husband´s nushûz.
General limitations on both husbands and wives are given due to the general ethical standards of the Quran (which always imply to respect the other human being and to not abuse him/her).
In 4/35 it is additionally stated that in the general case of discord both husband and wife should not try to take action on their own but only with the judgement of members of each ones party, always trying to seek peaceful restoration and good action.
Here we can clearly see that chapter 4 is not at all meant to legitimize marital abuse but it is meant to do the direct opposit.
Nushûz, setting yourself above your spouse and his/her rights, is forbidden to both the husband and the wife in a relationship!
Both are allowed to take consequences – only within the general ethical framework of the quranic teachings – should their spouse nevertheless abuse them and ignore their rights and both are commanded to do so while refering to the judgment of other members of each ones party and while explicitely seeking sulh (harmony, just peace, balance).
Chapter 4 also clearly tells us, in 4/75-77, that believers are commanded to fight for the rights of all opressed men AND women and children and to “restrain their own hands”.
And it is clear that chapter 4 can not be understood without the general Quranic vision of an ideal relationship between spouses, as described in 30/21.
-
Original post: https://leylajagiella.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/verse-434-and-domestic-violence/
Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones who are in accord with morality are the ones who are morally obligated, the ones who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those whose rebellion (nushûz) you fear, admonish them and abandon them in their sleeping place then hit/punish (daraba) them; and when they are obedient, sure look not for any against them; truly God is Lofty, Great. (Quran 4/34)
A controversial verse. Too often it has been used to legitimize domestic violence against women in Islam, too often it has been used to claim that Islam as such legitimizes such violence.
Others, like Laleh Bakhtiar or Edip Yüksel, try to posit a new translation of this verse. One that does not translate the verb daraba as “to hit, to punish” but simply as “to separate, to go away etc.”.
I would be more than happy to agree with the translations that Bakhtiar, Yüksel and some others give.
But, honestly, I can´t.
The problem is that to me it seems pretty forced and looks like a try of, as others have termed it, “whitewashing” the Quran.
It is true that in some instances in the Quran daraba does not mean “to punish” but e.g. “to separate”.
Unfortunately, in all occasions in which it does the verb comes with very specific post- or prepositions which are definitely lacking in 4/34.
Without these post- or prepositions the apparent Quranic use of the verb always implies an act of force, though not necessarily in the direct physical sense!
Other translators and commentators have however made the useful observation that the verb daraba always implies a singular and unrepeated onetime act of force, physical or other.
In contrast to this, to imply subsequent physical beatings the form darraba would correctly be used.
And while we have unsettling interpretations of men like Al-Ghazali or At-Tabari who indeed understood the verb as legitimizing physical violence against women, their understanding of the word had always been open to dispute, even in the classical times.
Alternative understandings have always been available.
Aside from that I would like to point out that to me the decisive word for the right understanding of this verse is not daraba but nushûz.
The word is often translated as “rebellion” etc. and when 4/34 is taken out of context it may thus indeed give the impression that according to the Quran women are commanded to obey their husbands in any case and when they do not it is legitimate to use violence against them.
But within the context of chapter 4 of the Quran such an understanding is total nonsense!
Nushûz is indeed an act of rebellion. But not in the sense of not agreeing with someone but in the sense of unrightfully setting oneself above others and their rights.
That is actually the direct meaning of the word.
The main topic of the chapter 4 of the Quran is marital and social harmony and the ethical duties, rules and laws that should be obeyed to keep this harmony intact.
This topic is also the context in which verse 34 appears.
In that context 4/34 does tell a wife to not unrightfully set herself above her husband and disobey the rules of harmony, otherwise her husband has the right to take consequences from that.
However, only some very few verses later, in 4/128, we are told that nushûz, abusing his wife and ignoring her rights, is also forbidden to the husband!
Nushûz is not a specific female crime, like some kind of anti-patriarchal disobedience.
Men can be as guilty of it and consequently women also have the right to take action against it.
4/128 also tells us that instead of falling into nushûz and to counter it both husband and wife should try to restore the sulh (harmony, just peace, balance) in their relationship.
4/34 does specify the cconsequences that the husband may take from his wife´snushûz.
Admonition, denying cozy company and force are the three steps that he can take, one after the other.
The Quran does not directly limit the cause that the wife may take or may not take in the case of her husband´s nushûz.
General limitations on both husbands and wives are given due to the general ethical standards of the Quran (which always imply to respect the other human being and to not abuse him/her).
In 4/35 it is additionally stated that in the general case of discord both husband and wife should not try to take action on their own but only with the judgement of members of each ones party, always trying to seek peaceful restoration and good action.
Here we can clearly see that chapter 4 is not at all meant to legitimize marital abuse but it is meant to do the direct opposit.
Nushûz, setting yourself above your spouse and his/her rights, is forbidden to both the husband and the wife in a relationship!
Both are allowed to take consequences – only within the general ethical framework of the quranic teachings – should their spouse nevertheless abuse them and ignore their rights and both are commanded to do so while refering to the judgment of other members of each ones party and while explicitely seeking sulh (harmony, just peace, balance).
Chapter 4 also clearly tells us, in 4/75-77, that believers are commanded to fight for the rights of all opressed men AND women and children and to “restrain their own hands”.
And it is clear that chapter 4 can not be understood without the general Quranic vision of an ideal relationship between spouses, as described in 30/21.
And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect. (Quran 30/21)
-
Original post: https://leylajagiella.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/verse-434-and-domestic-violence/
No comments:
Post a Comment