Violence Against Women Must Stop

Violence Against Women Must Stop: Interpret 4:34 the Way the Prophet Understood It By His Behavior
Laleh Bakhtiar

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Greetings of peace to all of you from Chicago where I will
speak to you about the translation of the Sublime Quran into English
and some of the rights I found that the Quran gives to women as
realities have become myths because of misinterpretation.

In speaking about the English translation of the Quran, let me
first state firmly and clearly that I am not speaking about the Arabic
of the Quran. That is the eternal Word of God revealed to the blessed
Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him. It is
how Muslims have interpreted the Word of God that is at issue and
where ijtihad or strenuous endeavor to reason an issue has to be
applied or tahqiq, as I prefer, reviving the intellectual tradition of
Islam, the proponent being a muhaqqiq – to know by verifying and
realizing the truth and reality of something for oneself.
But let me first explain why I felt a new translation was
necessary. You will notice that none of these reasons have anything
to do with my being a woman but represent the great Islamic
tradition of tahqiq or intellectual endeavor.

Once I embarked upon this task I knew that I would have to
devote all of my time it.
* 7 years: Seclusion in the Community
Left teaching, lecturing, traveling
* Begin with the words? King James version in the 17th century
* Spent years studying classical Arabic grammar
* Arabic Concordance: al-Mu’jim al-Mufaris
* Mac no Arabic; transliterated 90,000 words
* Called formal equivalence
* No interpretation: * Praying behind a wall: personal life of
Imam unclear
* Universal
* Blessed Prophet did not bring a new religion
* Came to confirm what was right in the messages of
previous Prophets
* What does it say to me today: Not what is its history
* If eternal, how can I relate to it today?
* Inclusive
* Quran says: Speak to people in their own language
* Blessed Prophet is a mercy to all of humanity
* Ungrateful instead of Disbeliever or Infidel
* God vs Allah; one who submits vs. muslim; submission
vs. islam
* Thou vs. You. You in bold.
* Consistency * Begin with the words and use same word
as long as context allows
* Created Database * For easy translation into other languages.
This was the case with the King James version of the Bible, a
translation that lasted for 300 years because of the consistency
in translation.
* Recitation marks
* Quran means Recitation. Where reciter takes a breath or
pauses determines the meaning.

Now we come to the point from which the translation became
controversial. Yet you will notice that it is the use of intellectual
endeavor that is relevant, not my gender. If a Muslim jurist had come
up with the same arguments and logical reasoning, the 1400+ year
mistake would be more readily admitted and changed.
Not only is the language of the Sublime Quran translation
inclusive rather than exclusive, this translation also reverts the
translation of 4:34 back to the way the Prophet understood it as
shown to us through his behavior. The part of Chapter 4 verse 34 in
question is more or less read in all present English translations:
“Those husbands who fear disobedience on the part of their wives, first
admonish them, then abandon their sleeping places, then beat them.”
My position is that the understanding of this verse must revert
back to the interpretation given it by the Prophet Muhammad, peace
and the mercy of God be upon him, through his actions. He never
beat anyone much less any of his wives. When there was any marital
discord, he went away.

Anyone who claims to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet must
do the same thing because the Sunnah of the Prophet is not to beat,
hit, hurt, spank, or chastise any woman. The word idribu is a
command, an imperative form of the verb, yet a command the
Prophet did not carry out if it means “beat” but he did carry it out
when it means “go away.” Therefore the Sunnah of the Prophet is
“not to beat.”

The word daraba or its imperative form in verb form I, idribu,
has 25 meanings. Why take a meaning that goes against the legal and
moral principles of the Quran that harms someone when the Prophet
did not do it.

The most conclusive arguments in Islamic tradition to prove or
disprove something is using the Quran to prove another point in the
Quran. This I will do. I will show how the present erroneous
interpretation of idribu creates a contradiction not in the Quran itself.
Two premises: First of all, marriage is encouraged in Islam as a
moral act. The blessed Prophet said: Marriage is half of faith.
Secondly, divorce is discouraged as an immoral act but if necessary,
allowed. The blessed Prophet said: Divorce is deplorable.
Now we get to the heart of the main reason why the word
“beat” is a misinterpretation.

We read in Chapter 2 verse 231: “When you divorce wives, and
they (f) are about to reach their (f) term, then hold them (f) back honorably or
set them (f) free honorably; but hold them (f) not back by injuring them so
that you commit aggression.” In other words, the Quran is telling
husbands not to harm their wives who want to be set free, not to hold
them back by injuring them. The word “injuring” (dirar) also means
hurt, harm, use force or commit aggression.
Let’s take an example. A Muslim wife, after many attempts to
help her husband’s manage his inappropriate anger, anger that most
often is taken out against her, tells her husband that she wants a
divorce. He, in his anger, does not at that moment remember that
according to 2:231 he is not to hold back by injuring a wife who
wants to be set free, and instead, being both judge and jury, beats her
as allowed in 4:34. The battered wife, becoming the victim of his
anger, is then afraid to speak out again as this last instance has
caused her to seek refuge in a shelter for battered women.

Therefore, we see a disconnect between 4:34 and 2:231. Jurists
have created a contradiction that is not in the Quran by encouraging
divorce and discouraging marriage so that we can conclude, a
Muslim woman who wants a divorce must be set free without
injuring, hurting, or using force against her, but a Muslim woman
who wants to remain married does do under the threat of being
beaten! If Muslim wives knew their rights, which one would want to
stay married under such circumstances?

Does this make sense? Is this encouraging marriage? 4:34 as
presently interpreted contradicts 2:231. How can we eliminate this
contradiction? There is a very simple solution: Revert the
interpretation back to how the blessed Prophet understood it through
his behavior, his sira.

It has been a great blessing that the Sublime Quran is the first
translation to use “go away” instead of beat in English translation.
We are told that the word “beat” in this verse (4:34) is a
transitive verb. That means it can only take a direct object. As this
verb is transitive it can only mean “beat.” When it is in its intransitive
form, it means “go away from them,” making them an indirect object.
There are two arguments against this rationalization of an immoral
act.

First of all we have to ask: When this verse was revealed to the
blessed Prophet and he heard the word idribu, that jurists and
commentators have said for over 1400 years means “beat,” did he sit
back and discuss within himself whether the verb that God was
revealing was a transitive or an intransitive one? No! By his behavior,
we know that he understood it to mean “go away from them.”
Otherwise we would have to conclude, God forbid, that the Prophet
did not understand the Quran as well as the later legal jurists do who
make this distinction.

Secondly, we are talking about translation, not about the
original Arabic which is the eternal Word of God. When you translate
from an original text into a target language, you have to go with the
rules of the target language. There are many times when an English
word requires an indirect object whereas the Arabic word does not.
Do you then distort the meaning? No. You go with the target
language.

Since the word “them (f)” is in the verse, in order to use “go
away” in English, you have to say: “Go away from them,” adding the
word “from” which then makes the object indirect. This is why the
jurists say it has to mean “beat them” or “hit them.” However, in
English we could say: “leave them” and we would be following the
grammar of the jurists but perhaps implying more than what the
Prophet understood.

We have to ask ourselves, why did the Prophet not beat his
wives even though it was a command in the Quran? First of all,
when the verse was revealed to him it appears from his behavior in
the same type of situation that he did not consider it to mean “beat
them” referring to hiswives. Itmight possibly be because the Quran
uses three other words for strike or beat, namely in 28:15, 38:41 and
51:29.

In 28:15 Moses struck a young man with is fist. The root letters
are not # r b, which we know also means “to strike,” but w k z.
In the case of 38:44, the command to Job to stomp his foot, the root
letters used are r k # and not # r b which can also mean “to stamp”
or “to stomp.” In 51:29, when Sarah, the wife of Abraham was told
she would have a child, she struck or smote her face on purpose,
the root letters being s k k and not # r b which as has been stated
also means “to strike” or “to smite.” Therefore just as other Arabic
words may mean “to strike,” so the root letters # r b may mean other
than “to strike,” i.e., “to go away” or “to separate.”

Based on his character, a model for all of humanity, he knew
innately that it was wrong to harm another human being. He knew
that according to 16:126 one is commanded to chastise with the same
chastisement that that person has been given. “And if you chastise
(
. . .” (16:126). Or, “And whoever chastises for injustice with the like of
what he was chastised and after that again was to be wronged, God will
certainly help him, truly God is Pardoning, Forgiving” (22:60).
Therefore, conceivably if a husband harms his wife by beating
her, according to 16:126, his wife would be allowed to chastise
her husband in return. The Prophet would have intuitively known
that if a husband were to beat his wife, she would have recourse to
her husband. He clearly believed that it was not within his Sunnah
to do such a thing. Therefore he showed by his behavior that 4:34
and the use of the word #araba means “go away from them” or
“leave them” and let the emotions subside.

Thirdly the Prophet’s respect for the female gender was
legendary. This included not only his wives, the mothers of the
believers, but his daughters as well. He had a very special
relationship with his daughter, Fatima, the only one of his daughters
to survive him. How could he beat his wives and not consider that
someone might beat one of his beloved daughters.
Fourthly the Prophet knew thatmarriage was based onmutual
respect and love. The Quran often tells husbands and wives to
consult on issues with each other. It would be unfair and unjust to
think that God would have revealed a verse that allowed husbands
to beat their wives instead of separating for a short period of time
and allowing the anger to subside. Then they would be able to once
again consult with one another.

Therefore anyone who claims to follow the Sunnah of the
Prophet must do the same thing because the Sunnah of the Prophet
is not to beat, hit, hurt, spank, or chastise any woman. The word
i#rib is a command, an imperative formof the verb, yet a command
the Prophet did not carry out if it means “beat them.” However he
did carry it out when it means “go away from them.”

What jurists claim is that the “beating” is only given to a wife
whose “nushuz” the husband fears. The jurists explain “nushuz” as
“disobedience” whereas I see the word to mean “resistance.”
As a matter of fact, nushuz does not mean “obedience” as that is
a completely different word in the Quran, a%[
nushuz, we see while in 4:34 the Quran says: “husbands who fear
resistance on the part of their wives,” in 4:128 the Quran says: wives who
fear “resistance” or nushuz on the part of their husbands. In truly a fair
and just fashion as the Quran always is, however we translate the
word in regard to a wife, must be translated and interpreted the same
for a husband. If nushuz is interpreted as meaning disobedient then it
must apply in both cases, a disobedient wife and/or a disobedient
husband.

Another example from the Quran as to why the word idribu in
4:34 does not mean to beat. According to 24:6-9, if a husband accuses
his wife of adultery without any witnesses except himself, the
husband swears an oath by God four times that he is one who is
sincere. He then swears a fifth oath that the curse of God’s be on him
if he is one who lies. The wife does the same thing. She swears by
God four times that he is one who lies. The wife then swears a fifth
oath that the anger of God be upon her if he be one who is sincere.
With this 5th oath on the part of a wife, all punishment is driven away
from her. God and humanity accepts her word and so must the
jurists. It is over!

And notice the fine nuance in the Quranic language between
what the husband must swear an oath to: the curse of God be upon
him if he lies and yet the wife must swear an oath that the anger of
God be upon her if her husband is sincere. This shows the great
respect God, his revelation through the blessed Prophet and the
Quran has for womanhood.

Example: Now let us imagine the same situation as we did with
4:34. Before a wife has a chance to take advantage of her right given
in the Quran in 24:6-9, her husband accuses her of adultery without
witnesses other than himself and beats her. She becomes a victim,
perhaps ending up in a shelter. Now, a victim, she no longer has the
will to defend herself and instead assumes that she is in the wrong
and deserves to be beaten even when she has done nothing wrong.
Thus wrongly interpreting idrib to mean “beat” instead of “go
away” or “leave” has turned at least two realities that the Quran has
given women into myths. The reality that a husband who wants to
divorce his wife cannot hold her back by injuring her protects a wife
who wants to be set free. This is a right she is given in the Quran—
not to be injured! When idrib is interpreted as beat, this reality
becomes a myth as the example has shown.

It is reality that 24:6-9 allows a wife who is accused of adultery
by her husband without any witnesses other than himself to defend
herself against the accusation and God and humanity accepts her
defense but because of misinterpretation of 4:34, because of not
following the Sira and behavior of the Prophet, the best model for
humanity, a reality is turned into a myth for a wife.

In addition, in both cases of the use of the word idribu
interpreted as meaning beat, Muslim translators and interpreters are
commanding to munkar and prohibiting ma’ruf, commanding to
immorality and prohibiting morality, the definition of a hypocrite in
9:67. They are making asking for a divorce to be preferred because
she cannot be harmed over remaining married because remaining
married is under the threat of being beaten.

I have been asked: How can you go against the tradition and
over 1400 years of commentary? My response: If we study Islamic
history, after the time of the Rushidin, the 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs,
we Muslims have had 1400 years of almost uninterrupted rulership
by tyrants and dictators with the exception of a few years of a pious
ruler.

Does that mean that we cannot go against tradition and
demand pious, benevolent rulers? No. Of course not. The response is
that the minute that each individual member of the ummah gains
consciousness of a wrong being done in the name of God, in the
name of Islam, he or she has the responsibility to speak out.
What might help Muslim women become more self confident?
In terms of traditional psychology, each person is created with
a feminine principle called the carnal or animal soul, the passions
(nafs ammarah), and the masculine principle called ability to reason
(nafs natiq). Culturally women came to symbolize the carnal soul
while men symbolize reason so that by controlling woman as carnal
soul on the outside, men would control themselves.

The exception to this understanding exists in an Islamic way of
life known as “spiritual integrity” (futuwwah) and “moral
reasonableness” (muruwwah). In the view of this Islamic school of
thought and action, each human being contains both a carnal soul
and the ability to reason within themselves. It is up to each
individual, male or female, to struggle with their own carnal soul to
reach toward a stage of moral healing.

Such a person is known as a spiritual advocate (fata for the male
in Arabic and fatat for the female in Arabic or javanmard for either sex
in Turkish, Urdu and Persian). This is the Islamic school of thought
that I follow.

What does this entail? It requires that one consciously
undertake the greater struggle with the self or the ego (jihad al-akbar);
that one struggles at each instance of a behavior that reflects the “me”
within instead of centering on “others.” This is a great deal for the
ego to have to give up and it offers resistance every step of the way.
This struggle is a significant one because it reinforces those
values which the model human being—Muhammad (peace and the
mercy of God be upon him)— manifested. That is, when reason
succeeds in attracting the heart towards itself, the self gains control
and mastery over the passions—in appropriate lust and anger.
Gaining mastery, the self can then process values to which it has been
guided by revelation and turn away from the disvalues which
guidance through revelation has discredited.

Such misguidance and disvalues are interpreting idrib in 4:23 as
“beat them” instead of the meaning the exact same word has “go
away from them,” or “leave them.”

The response of the world should provide a Muslim woman
with a sense of reflection so that she can look at her surroundings
with a critical eye as an intellectual would do. As a member of a
group of believing women, fellow travelers at this sensitive juncture
of time, her thoughts, ideologies, and spiritual beliefs could come to
govern human society today. This is a role which believing women,
as a group, have never played in a significant way throughout the
entire history of humanity but it is a role which her way of life offers
to her with open arms.

What is important is to develop social growth among the
Muslim women themselves, in particular, and in the ummah as a
whole. To stand against the injustice of allowing a husband to act as
judge and jury to beat his so-called “guilty” wife rather than his
“innocent-until-proven-guilty“ wife, beaten before she has a chance
to give her side.

Historically it has been shown that until the people, in general,
and this, of course, applies to women, in particular, are not awakened
and until they not find a social conscience, the journey will end in
stagnation, in staying or remaining at one stopping place. It has
rightly been said: Do not show people the way and determine their
duty and responsibility as jurists and the men and women they
influence in the Islamic world do, but rather give them insight as the
Islamic world also gives as a hidden treasure, as a tool to use to gain
consciousness of themselves, their beliefs and their surroundings and
they will find the way themselves; they will recognize their duty.
Insight and intuition come in many forms. Understanding the
meaning of the Quran is one of them, one way for Muslim men and
women to self-identify with the Quran, to see it as the wisest of
teachers.