This is a recurring question that is raised in the context of domestic violence among Muslims. The assertion is that verse 4:35 of the Holy Quran allows or promotes this.
The short answer to this accusation is simply that it does not allow beating of the spouse or causing her any bodily harm. Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has said generally to the men "do not beat them"; and more specifically that "husbands who beat their wives are not the best among men".
This question has been answered wonderfully by Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (Khalifatul Maseeh IV)
The problem at hand has several dimensions. There are those who have simply translated "wazriboohunna" really badly as "beat them" thus causing confusion. But more central is a general effort to discredit Islam in general and present it as a religion of violence. In this article I will try to explain this matter in a coherent fashion keeping in mind the overall philosophy. We often get so involved in answering accusations that we lose the big picture.
Islam's view on society at large
First we need to understand how Islam views the society at large. According to 42:12 Allah is the Creator and Source for everything and the basic unit of the society is us - in pairs. So family is the basic unit of the society. Then, according to 42:39, to make decisions these units create a system where they discuss their affairs to come up with decisions for the challenges they face.
A deeper understanding of the various attributes of Allah tells us that while Allah is the absolute source of all these attributes and these attributes rest in Him in complete perfection, we must try to live these attributes to the best of our abilities and within the limitation and rules that He has created for us.
One of these attributes is Unity of Allah. Allah is the only one who is absolutely Unique. Allah attributes the harmony in the universe to His unity.
As the society is formed, this is a generally accepted principle that executive authority in the society should be ultimately kept in a single person or a single constitutional body. There are checks and balances in our societies but we need to have a person about whom we can say "buck stops here". In our country we have president, across the pond we have prime ministers. There is not a single example of a developed civilization that was led by two, three, or many leaders at the same time. Such an effort would create confusion and chaos - in fact such efforts are termed "rebellion" or "civil wars".
So as we go down to the basic unit, same principle must be kept, i.e. a family must have a unique person about whom we can say "buck stops here". A family needs a structure just like a society needs a structure and chaos will always follow when this unity is taken away. This is all the verse 4:35 is saying, that men are the guardians of the family.
So what gives the moral authority to a president to govern our affairs? The simple and generally accepted answer, supported by the commerce clause of the US constitution as well, is that the president is the head of the system that controls the overall finances of our society. That is the second point that 4:35 is making that men have that authority because they provide for the family. This verse can also be translated as "they have authority as long as they provide for the family" - implying that men who do not provide also lose the status of the head of the household - exactly like a government that fails to meet the needs of the people loses the moral authority. British lost the moral authority to rule the US because they stopped acting like a provider.
What is guardianship of a family?
The issue of guardianship becomes an issue of contention without any regard to what it entails. The responsibility on men is enormous. Hadrat Umar (2nd successor of Prophet Muhammad(sa)) is reported to have said that "women have the upper hand in the society". Man of the house is responsible for the family to the society at large - exactly how the government of a country is answerable to God about the welfare of its citizens. According to Islam, the whole family has rights over every cent that the man has or makes - but wife, who has complete right to property and inheritance, does not have to contribute anything. It will be "ihsaan" or extreme favor on her part if she does.
Along with this, the man is also responsible for welfare and protection of the family; exactly how modern societies view the role of the government. A man cannot shy away from this responsibility without abdicating his status as the head of the household. When the government of Pakistan shows its inability to curb extremism within its borders, does the world at large give the government a free pass? No - we expect the government to live up to its responsibilities and that is exactly what the role of the man is in a family.
If family is in danger from within or without - man is responsible to the government and to God for the ultimate welfare.
Is government about welfare and protection or about punishment?
All governments have an ultimate right to exact punishment on its citizens - but is that the central focus of a government? When our founding fathers were creating the USA, did they just want to create a system through which they can put people in jail? Reducing this verse to a verse that allows wife beating is like reducing the US constitution to a system that was created to take over people's homes.
If one member of the society commits harm to another member, or to the authority of the government itself, does the government not have the obligation to resolve such conflicts? Today, isn't the whole world pressuring the government of Pakistan to bring its house in order to save the rest of the countries of the world?
But this is not why countries gain independence. Governments are made to serve the citizens. Idea that government is "of the people, for the people, and by the people" is not a cliche.
Man's status of Qawwam is also about protection of the family - not about punishment
The same analogy applies to the man of the house. I have not done a detailed study - but it will be interesting to find out how many Muslim men who beat their wives also keep peace in their family? and provide for their family? Actually many such men steal from their wives and demand large dowries at the time of their weddings.
This verse is also saying the same thing. The word "wazriboohunna" implies that they can use their bodies to stop actions that hurt their families. It does not imply that they should exact injury - if that were the intention, Quran should have said "wazriboohunna zarban". To understand this we must also understand that when we are dealing with such delicate matters, a good Muslim is very prudent. For example Muslims were treated very badly during the early years but they did not raise arms in their defence because Allah had not allowed it at that time - they refused to even defend themselves until Allah allowed it.
So, if we take a very narrow view and say that a man is not allowed to use his body to stop an act which could hurt the well being of other members of the family or of other families - how should a man deal with the following examples:
The short answer to this accusation is simply that it does not allow beating of the spouse or causing her any bodily harm. Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has said generally to the men "do not beat them"; and more specifically that "husbands who beat their wives are not the best among men".
This question has been answered wonderfully by Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (Khalifatul Maseeh IV)
The problem at hand has several dimensions. There are those who have simply translated "wazriboohunna" really badly as "beat them" thus causing confusion. But more central is a general effort to discredit Islam in general and present it as a religion of violence. In this article I will try to explain this matter in a coherent fashion keeping in mind the overall philosophy. We often get so involved in answering accusations that we lose the big picture.
Islam's view on society at large
First we need to understand how Islam views the society at large. According to 42:12 Allah is the Creator and Source for everything and the basic unit of the society is us - in pairs. So family is the basic unit of the society. Then, according to 42:39, to make decisions these units create a system where they discuss their affairs to come up with decisions for the challenges they face.
A deeper understanding of the various attributes of Allah tells us that while Allah is the absolute source of all these attributes and these attributes rest in Him in complete perfection, we must try to live these attributes to the best of our abilities and within the limitation and rules that He has created for us.
One of these attributes is Unity of Allah. Allah is the only one who is absolutely Unique. Allah attributes the harmony in the universe to His unity.
As the society is formed, this is a generally accepted principle that executive authority in the society should be ultimately kept in a single person or a single constitutional body. There are checks and balances in our societies but we need to have a person about whom we can say "buck stops here". In our country we have president, across the pond we have prime ministers. There is not a single example of a developed civilization that was led by two, three, or many leaders at the same time. Such an effort would create confusion and chaos - in fact such efforts are termed "rebellion" or "civil wars".
So as we go down to the basic unit, same principle must be kept, i.e. a family must have a unique person about whom we can say "buck stops here". A family needs a structure just like a society needs a structure and chaos will always follow when this unity is taken away. This is all the verse 4:35 is saying, that men are the guardians of the family.
So what gives the moral authority to a president to govern our affairs? The simple and generally accepted answer, supported by the commerce clause of the US constitution as well, is that the president is the head of the system that controls the overall finances of our society. That is the second point that 4:35 is making that men have that authority because they provide for the family. This verse can also be translated as "they have authority as long as they provide for the family" - implying that men who do not provide also lose the status of the head of the household - exactly like a government that fails to meet the needs of the people loses the moral authority. British lost the moral authority to rule the US because they stopped acting like a provider.
What is guardianship of a family?
The issue of guardianship becomes an issue of contention without any regard to what it entails. The responsibility on men is enormous. Hadrat Umar (2nd successor of Prophet Muhammad(sa)) is reported to have said that "women have the upper hand in the society". Man of the house is responsible for the family to the society at large - exactly how the government of a country is answerable to God about the welfare of its citizens. According to Islam, the whole family has rights over every cent that the man has or makes - but wife, who has complete right to property and inheritance, does not have to contribute anything. It will be "ihsaan" or extreme favor on her part if she does.
Along with this, the man is also responsible for welfare and protection of the family; exactly how modern societies view the role of the government. A man cannot shy away from this responsibility without abdicating his status as the head of the household. When the government of Pakistan shows its inability to curb extremism within its borders, does the world at large give the government a free pass? No - we expect the government to live up to its responsibilities and that is exactly what the role of the man is in a family.
If family is in danger from within or without - man is responsible to the government and to God for the ultimate welfare.
Is government about welfare and protection or about punishment?
All governments have an ultimate right to exact punishment on its citizens - but is that the central focus of a government? When our founding fathers were creating the USA, did they just want to create a system through which they can put people in jail? Reducing this verse to a verse that allows wife beating is like reducing the US constitution to a system that was created to take over people's homes.
If one member of the society commits harm to another member, or to the authority of the government itself, does the government not have the obligation to resolve such conflicts? Today, isn't the whole world pressuring the government of Pakistan to bring its house in order to save the rest of the countries of the world?
But this is not why countries gain independence. Governments are made to serve the citizens. Idea that government is "of the people, for the people, and by the people" is not a cliche.
Man's status of Qawwam is also about protection of the family - not about punishment
The same analogy applies to the man of the house. I have not done a detailed study - but it will be interesting to find out how many Muslim men who beat their wives also keep peace in their family? and provide for their family? Actually many such men steal from their wives and demand large dowries at the time of their weddings.
This verse is also saying the same thing. The word "wazriboohunna" implies that they can use their bodies to stop actions that hurt their families. It does not imply that they should exact injury - if that were the intention, Quran should have said "wazriboohunna zarban". To understand this we must also understand that when we are dealing with such delicate matters, a good Muslim is very prudent. For example Muslims were treated very badly during the early years but they did not raise arms in their defence because Allah had not allowed it at that time - they refused to even defend themselves until Allah allowed it.
So, if we take a very narrow view and say that a man is not allowed to use his body to stop an act which could hurt the well being of other members of the family or of other families - how should a man deal with the following examples:
- Woman severely beats the children
- Woman is guilty of stealing
- Woman is guilty of creating unrest in the family - from ordinary matters to extraordinary that could threaten the society at large
Islam says that man is still responsible. He cannot say that "I tried to tell her that beating the children is not a good idea but she did not listen" - no he must use necessary means to protect the children.
So the reader will be quick to say "but man can also beat the children or steal, etc - what about that". The answer is simple; would it be fair to put the same responsibility on the woman? If man beats the children - would it be fair to ask the woman to stop him using her body?
But still - why allow physical punishment at all?
That is a fair question - but we have to first understand what is the nature of this so called physical punishment. We have already established "beat" is not correct as the intention must not be to inflict harm. And this is not a brand new question that someone just discovered - same question was posed to the Prophet (sa) himself and he replied:
- There must not be any mark due to this (Tirmazi: ch. on Rida)
- He generally said that those who beat their wives are not the best among men (Kathir iii)
- To use something like a miswaak (toothbrush)
And we know that Holy Prophet (sa) himself never ever committed such an act (There are some blogs and comments on the web - but they all stem from lack of knowledge of Hadith and basic knowledge of Arabic. There is absolutely no reliable evince of even a single incident that attributes such an act to the Holy Prophet(sa)).
So then another fair question will be, what is the point of mentioning it if all it implies is that
- Don't do it because if you do it you will not be the best among men
- Or use toothbrush - which really is quite comical if used as a tool for this.
The answer is evident in the verse itself and by the verse that follows it. This is a mark in the escalation. Wife may be showing rebellious attitudes but may think that nothing will come off it because of any variety of reasons. This symbolic gesture implies that now the limit has been reached and the next step is divorce. The very next verse is talking about those eventualities.
So when a husband shows his displeasure by other means mentioned in the verse, there is always the next escalation point; but once this point is reached - it is to just tell the wife that the couple is reaching a point of no return. When we consider the limitations prescribed, it provides a complete picture. Such a gesture certainly is better than a yelling match that could ensue otherwise.
Understanding it in the modern context
As societies evolve they create other institutions to improve the harmony. At a global level we went from completely sovereign nations to creation of a United Nations. We are trying to see if an idea of international court of law can work. Similarly 42:39 suggests that members of a society can create laws. In presence of such laws certain permissions become void according to 4:60. So while the verse in question is not abrogated, if society creates laws that limit certain permissions - those limitations have to be followed by Muslims according to Quran. This idea is not an innovation - during the reign of the second rightly guided successor of Prophet Muhammad (sa), Umar (ra) temporarily modified the law governing divorce to save the abuse that was hurting women. The details of that are beyond the scope of this article but the basic assertion is that when society creates laws, it becomes mandatory for Muslims to abide by them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would invite you to read a great article by my friend Haris Zafar titled "Islam and the Quran require us to honor, Not Abuse, women". Everything that Quran says has a larger social and world view behind it. We may agree or disagree with that view but we should at least honestly try to understand it.
Domestic abuse is a serious matter - but that is not because of any religion. According to some statistics 1 in 3 women in our country is abused - there is no Islam here. Those who commit such coward acts do not go and first study the holy scriptures and then come up with "oh, God wants me to beat my wife". This verse does not provide relief to the Muslims who beat their wives, instead it convicts them.
Appendix - Use of zarab in Holy Quran
| Ref | Arabic | Meaning | Usage | |
| 2:27 |  | yazriba | illustration | Allah disdains not to give an illustration as small as a gnat or even smaller... |
| 2:61 |  | izrib | Strike | And remember the time when Moses prayed for water for his people, and We said: ‘Strike the rock with thy rod,’ |
| 2:62 |  | zurebat | smitten | And they were smitten with abasement and destitution |
| 2:73 |  | izrebuhu | compare | Compare this incident with some other similar ones |
| 2:274 |  | zarban | move | These alms are for the poor who are detained in the cause of Allah and are unable to move about in the land |
| 3:113 | Same as 2:62 | |||
| 3:157 | Same as 2:274 | |||
| 4:95 | Same as 2:274 | |||
| 4:102 | Same as 2:274 | |||
| 5:107 | Same as 2:274 | |||
| 7:161 | Same as 2:61 | |||
| 8:13 |  | Izrebu | Smite | When thy Lord revealed to the angels, saying, ‘I am with you; so give firmness to those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Smite, then, the upper parts of their necks, and smite off all finger-tips.’ The context here is an armed conflict. Refer to the detailed commentary |
| 8:51 | Same as 8:13 | |||
| 13:18 | Same as 2:27 | |||
| 14:25 | Same as 2:27 | |||
| 14:26 | Same as 2:27 | |||
| 14:46 | Same as 2:27 |
Posts
