So Can A Man Beat His Wife According To Quran?

[veiledbeauty313]

In surah Nisa verse number 34 the following states

 

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.

 

 

I always thought Islam forbid hurting woman..

[tearingmyhairout]

Absolutely islam approves of this. but try doing it. how long is your wife gonna stay with u? not long. so, it's impossible in reality. some muslims in the early days used to use whips on their wives! imagine that...female life wasn't that good, and their social life even worse. so, if u want a good relationship its just impossible to beat ur wife, even though islam has no problem with it.

[Rohulah Khorasani]

The word strike in the quran is Daraba 

 

The prophet said, no man can use aggression against other human being, 

of course the matter is different when it comes to some obligatory duties, wich hitting a woman is surely not!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Daraba :to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation

Daraba :to have intercourse, not to beat

[kadhim]

Congratulations. You have read an entry from an Arabic lexicon, and have magically cleared up this matter that everyone was oddly wrong about for 1400 years. It's a good thing you showed up.

[Rohulah Khorasani]

(kadim to you if you want to hit your sister and mother as Omar did, so do please,)

 

 

Hitting is a habbit of the cultuur and the tradition,

 

the unknowledgeable man has misused and misunderstood the position of male the mastic(jalal) part and female(jamal) the beautiful part and,

Allah is all ofcourse, but jalal  mostly regarded to be above jamal,

So the unknowledgeable male has took himself in this jalalic idea to be above the woman, and ofcourse the lifestyle in the ages were so that male had to work and and felt himself much higher and so the tradition never stopped at some places within some countries

[kadhim]

Rolah, do you have anything to bring aside from ad hominem non sequitur?

You have an explanation as to why the readers have had it wrong for so long? This is something you need to explain.

Do you have narrations from the aimmah interpreting this verse the way you want it to be? You can't just randomly play around with it based on what offends you. You need to prove it from the base sources in as direct a way as possible.

I think everyone would like it to be as you claim; it would be much more cute and cuddly and comfortable. But we have to go based on what the sources actually say. Otherwise we're just following ourselves. Can you back yourself up?

Edited January 26, 2014 by kadhim

[Rohulah Khorasani]

Rolah, do you have anything to bring aside from ad hominem non sequitur?

You have an explanation as to why the readers have had it wrong for so long? This is something you need to explain.

Do you have narrations from the aimmah interpreting this verse the way you want it to be? You can't just randomly play around with it based on what offends you. You need to prove it from the base sources in as direct a way as possible.

The answere is this only for you, if your a true Shia and have some knowledge wich i know bevaus of your BLOG, you would aundrestand to whom i was answering, the same as you do to them in a view lines, because open space isnt a child play ineed, 

Hope you aundrestand it now, if not go play some more

[Sumerian]

The word strike in the quran is Daraba 

 

The prophet said, no man can use aggression against other human being, 

of course the matter is different when it comes to some obligatory duties, wich hitting a woman is surely not!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Daraba :to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation

Daraba :to have intercourse, not to beat

That does not make sence, if she is disobedient you are meant to strike her, no? Stop arguing with the Quran, this is te tafsir of everyone. Put the second defenition in, the whole thing would not make sense.

[Marbles]

When you strike your wife for disobedience, think of what she'll do to you when you're asleep...

[Rohulah Khorasani]

When you strike your wife for disobedience, think of what she'll do to you when you're asleep...

Agree,

 

Hikma is to heavy for some 

[notme]

Would it in any way improve the situation?  If not, then why ruin the marriage by it?

[Jahangiram]

A hit is not the same as harming, causing any harm like a bruise/cut is haram, every tafsir mentions this from the sunni and shia side:

 

Tabari :-

  عن ابن عباس: { وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ } قال: ضرباً غير مبرّح.

 

"From Ibn Abbas: {And strike them} he said: 'a hit without severity'"

 

 

Tabrasi :-

وإلا ضربها ضرباً غير مبرح

"And if she doesn't (return after admonishment and separation of beds) then he strikes her without severity"

 

 

Qummi :-

 فإن أطاعته فسبيل ذلك وإلا سبها وهو الهجر فإن رجعت إلى فراشها فذلك وإلا ضربها ضرباً غير مبرح

"So if she obeys then the path is left as such, and if not then he insults by leaving the bed; so if she returns to her bed then it is left as such and if not then he strikes her without severity"

 

 

Tusi:-

"And as for the strike then it is without severity by consensus, Abu Ja'far (as) said: 'It is by the miswak'"

وأما الضرب فانه غير مبرِّح بلا خلاف قال أبوجعفر (ع): هو بالسواك

 

 

Note the common phrase in all these tafsirs: 'ghayr mubarrih' - 'without severity'. And last but not least the Quran itself:

 

"Lodge them [in a section] of where you dwell out of your means and do not harm them in order to oppress them." - 65:6

 

 

Very exceptional situation when the wife doesn't reform after admonishment and separation of beds. And the only things a wife is obliged to fulfil with her husband is sexual satisfaction and protection of his property in his absence. The husband has no authority beyond this.

 

Hope that helps.
 

Edited January 26, 2014 by Jahangiram

[Waiting for HIM]

Hmmmm how to hit wife according to Quran?

I guess throw all the Saha-e-Sitta at her, all in once.. Those heavy books, full of lies and reticule imagined by Ayesha and Ab Huraiara would surely hurt her on many levels.

The word translated as 'hit' also means 'walk away' in Quran, so depends which word you stick to.

[Ali Musaaa :)]

Absolutely islam approves of this. but try doing it. how long is your wife gonna stay with u? not long. so, it's impossible in reality. some muslims in the early days used to use whips on their wives! imagine that...female life wasn't that good, and their social life even worse. so, if u want a good relationship its just impossible to beat ur wife, even though islam has no problem with it.

 

Thats a lie. Men are not allowed to use whips on their wives. Please do not speak of such nonsense. For your information, the Zani was 'whipped' with shoes and pieces of clothing in the Prophet's [sawa] time and afterwards. If they were 'whipping' the worst of criminals with pieces of clothing how on earth can you think it was permissible to strike your own wife with a whip? 

 

 

Moreover, Allamah Tabataba'i in his Tafsir al-Mizan cites a narration from as-Sadiq [a] which states this ayah refers to the use of a Miswak (literally a twig).

The word translated as 'hit' also means 'walk away' in Quran, so depends which word you stick to.

 

Can you provide evidence for this from our own Qur'ānic Commentators for this? 

 

It may also mean 'walk away' but this is not how the A'immah [as] have interpreted it. They have said it is a physical hit with a Miswak.

Both Sunni and Shī'ī tafseer's are clear it is a physical hit that is to leave no marks. As brother Jahangiram has highlighted, Sh.Tusi also quotes al-Baqir [as] saying the hit is with a Miswak. As I mentioned above, Allamah Tabataba'i mentions a hadith from the 6th imam which says the same thing. 

 

I always thought Islam forbid hurting woman..

 

How much damage could you seriously do with a twig?

Edited January 26, 2014 by Ali Musaaa :)

[EthidiumIodide]

It's beyond reason to think Allah would want us to hit our wives with miswak or some light touch. A hit is a hit and it should be as such.

 

If the order of punishment is:

 

1. Admonishment

2. Separation

3. Hit her with a twig?

 

Anyone can see through this sort of nonsense.

[Maryaam]

 

 

 

I always thought Islam forbid hurting woman..

 

Islam forbids hurting obedient women.  But for disobedient wives they can be admonished, have back turned on them and then, if that doesn't change things they can be hit. Best to be obedient :P. But the obedience is to Islam not because of not following some random orders like not sweeping the floor.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Maryaam

[Ali Musaaa :)]

It's beyond reason to think Allah would want us to hit our wives with miswak or some light touch. A hit is a hit and it should be as such.

 

If the order of punishment is:

 

1. Admonishment

2. Separation

3. Hit her with a twig?

 

Anyone can see through this sort of nonsense.

 

Akhi, make Tawba..

Edited January 27, 2014 by Ali Musaaa :)

[EthidiumIodide]

^Common tactic to deflect critical analysis of your untenable position.

[Marbles]

It may also mean 'walk away' but this is not how the A'immah [as] have interpreted it. They have said it is a physical hit with a Miswak.

 

Perhaps it's like...walk away with a miswak.

[Reza]

So what's the issue here exactly?

[Ali Musaaa :)]

Perhaps it's like...walk away with a miswak.

 

Who gets the miswak? :P 

^Common tactic to deflect critical analysis of your untenable position.

 

You're arguing against Divine Revelation and outright accused God of not making sense. Additionally, when provide with textual evidence from the Scholars of various Schools of Law you reject it and call it nonsense. Its not my position. This is what the Qur'ān says, and this is what the Imams [as] have explained it.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't give you have the right to call it nonsense. It is what it is. Islam means submission to the Laws of God. It seems some of us here have forgotten this. 

So what's the issue here exactly?

 

Sincere individuals ask questions in order to learn. But some amongst us prefer to follow their Hawa instead of accepting and submitting to Divine Law.

[Tany]

Salaam,

Someone sent me this explanation when I enquired about this particular verse:

It is also true that those who believe that Surat an-Nisaa (4:34) endorses hitting women to 'discipline' them are quite mistaken. Islam does not sanction — let alone encourage — the beating of women! Sadly, this misunderstanding is widespread in English translations of the Holy Qur'an. Yusuf Ali, for instance, translates this ayah as follows:

"34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God 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 God 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 God is Most High, great (above you all)."

A contemporary Qur'an translator, Sr. (& Dr.) Laleh Bakhtiar argues forcefully that the original meaning of the Arabic verb usually translated as “to beat” in English, in 4:34, was “to go away.” The translator gives three arguments for why this is so:

The words “beat them” in 4:34 are a command, an imperative form of the verb. Yet the Prophet, peace and the mercy of God be upon him, never carried out this command. Even if one were to say that just because a word in the Quran is grammatically a command does not mean that the Prophet had to carry it out; it means it is permissible for him to do or not to do. The retort: He chose not to do it. Therefore, whoever follows the Sunnah of the Prophet should also choose not to do it.

The word interpreted as “to beat” for over 1400 years in the Islamic world has over 25 meanings. Why chose a meaning that goes against both the legal and moral principles of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet?

The strongest argument for why the Arabic word does not mean "to beat"� but rather means “to go away” is because interpreting the Arabic word as "to beat"� contradicts another verse in the Quran. We start with a premise: Islam encourages marriage and while divorce is allowed, it is discouraged. The Prophet said: Marriage is half of faith. He also said: Divorce is deplorable.

In 2:231 the Quran says as translated in the Sublime Quran: "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; and hold them (f) not back by injuring them so that you commit aggression, and whoever commits that, then indeed he does wrong to himself; and take not the Signs of God to yourselves in mockery; remember the divine blessing of God on you and what He sent forth to you of the Book and wisdom; He admonishes you with it; and be Godfearing of God and know that God is knowing of everything."� All English translations translate this verse in a similar way.

That is, a husband may not hold back his wife from divorce by hurting, harming, injuring her or using force against her. Reading this verse as if for the first time, it suddenly occurred to the translator that what the Quran says in 2:231 contradicts the way 4:34 has been interpreted over the centuries by everyone except the blessed Prophet. The translation in the Sublime Quran of 4:34 reflects the interpretation as the blessed Prophet understood it: "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 (f) who are in accord with morality are the ones (f) who are morally obligated, the ones (f) who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those (f) whose resistance you fear, then admonish them (f) and abandon them (f) in their sleeping place, then go away from them (f); and if they (f) obey you, surely look not for any way against them (f); truly God is Lofty,

Great."

In 4:34, as translated in a similar manner by all present English translations except the Sublime Quran translation, Muhammad Asad, for example translates 4:34 in the following way: "Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great."�

What this tells us (and all present English translations) is that if a woman wants a divorce, a husband is forbidden from harming, hurting, injuring or using force against her while for a woman who wants to stay married, it is permissible for her husband to beat her!!! Recall our premise: Islam encourages marriage. If women were aware of this contradiction, what woman would chose to stay married and be beaten rather than be divorced and unharmed?

The Arabic Word of God was, is and remains the Word of God. There is no change in the Arabic. The change is in our perception, our interpretation. The understanding of saying "go away" is a revert interpretation to how the blessed Prophet understood it. Whoever believes in and follows the Sunnah should logically agree with reverting the interpretation to the way that the blessed Prophet understood it.

We refer back to the first two arguments: 1. The word “beat” is a command which the Prophet chose not to carry out; and 2. The Arabic word "beat" has 25 meanings so why chose a meaning that does not follow the legal and moral principles of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet? 3. Interpreting the word as "beat"� contradicts 2:231 and fosters divorce rather than marriage, commands to immorality and prohibits morality which is one of the definitions of a hypocrite in the Quran (see 9:67).

While I have personally been blessed by my contacts with the most understanding and compassionate of men in my lifetime, and I have never found myself in a situation of being physically threatened or beaten, reading about and hearing first hand stories of women who have, I felt the deep sense that I am essentially and spiritually one with them by my very existence. The question I kept asking myself during the years of working on the translation: How could God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, sanction husbands beating their wives?

The feeling, however, did not rise to the surface until the day I first publicly presented the results of this translation of the Sublime Quran at the WISE (Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity) Conference (November, 2006), in particular in reference to 4:34. There were 150 Muslim women from all over the world who had gathered to discuss the possibility of forming a Women's Islamic Council. I gave the logic as to why the word "to beat" in 4:34 has to revert to its original interpretation as understood by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him.

At the end of the session, two Muslim women approached me. They said that they work in shelters for battered women and that they and the women in the shelters have been waiting for 1400 years for someone to pay attention to this issue through a translation of the Quran. The heavy weight of responsibility suddenly fell upon my shoulders. I had to publish my findings as soon as possible so that, with the Will of God, one less woman: wife, mother, sister, daughter, cousin, friend, in general, or Muslim wife, in particular, would be beaten at all and especially not in the Name of God; so that by initiating a dialogue, the minds of the exclusivists will awaken to consciousness and conscience; they will counsel those husbands who place their hand on the Word of God and give themselves permission to beat their wives, that they have neither the legal nor the moral right to do that. It is the prayer of all women throughout the world that all future translations

of the Quran, in whatever language, will revert the interpretation back to the legal and moral principles of the Quran and Sunnah of the blessed Prophet, inshallah. God knows best.

[:Sami II]

I think polygamy is the answer here 

no man will attempt to take on 4 of them 

Edited January 27, 2014 by :Sami II

[Ruq]

^ Thats the best argument for polygamy ive ever seen

Edited January 27, 2014 by Ruq

[baqar]

What this tells us (and all present English translations) is that if a woman wants a divorce, a husband is forbidden from harming, hurting, injuring or using force against her while for a woman who wants to stay married, it is permissible for her husband to beat her!!! Recall our premise: Islam encourages marriage. If women were aware of this contradiction, what woman would chose to stay married and be beaten rather than be divorced and unharmed?

 

Absolutely

 

In fact, the Quran asks men to forgive their wives and children even when they turn against them. 

 

[64:14] Believers, indeed, among your wives and children, you (may) have an enemy.  Therefore beware of them. And if (at the same time), you forgive (them) and overlook (their faults), and are forbearing, (well, then remember that) God is also very forgiving and merciful.

 

The 'beating' does not quite fit in with the general drift of the Quran.

 

And even if beating is implied, it is clear that the beating must not exceed the touch of a twig, as God instructs Job to do

 

[38:43] And We gave him (Job) his family and the like of them as a mercy from us and as a reminder to those with understanding.

 

[38:44] And take a green twig in your hand and strike her with it (so that) you do not break your oath. Indeed we found him patient. Most excellent (was he), this servant! He turned to God frequently.

 

I am not aware if there is a specific historical context for this verse but I think it is believed to apply to situations of unfaithfulness or near-unfaithfulness. 

 

Also if 'beating' is indeed implied, the power to 'beat' may not necessarily be vested with the husband but with the court.

 

 

You have an explanation as to why the readers have had it wrong for so long? 

 

Ask Sunnis, they will tell you that Shias have understood lots of things incorrectly for 1400 years. 

 

Ask Shias. They will likewise tell you that Sunnis have understood lots of things incorrectly for 1400 years. 

 

At least one of them has certainly misunderstood heaps, for a very long time.

 

And just because I am a Shia, I do not assume that everything understood by us is absolutely perfect. 

 

There surely are things that have been wrongly understood by both Shias and Sunnis and will continue to be, until our Imam (as) comes.

Edited January 27, 2014 by baqar

[Ali Musaaa :)]

Tany,

 

So for the past 1400 years of Islamic Scholarship everyone was wrong, even the Infallible Imams, but this random translator has suddenly figured it out for us?

Can any serious Muslim believe that?

[baqar]

This is something you need to explain.

 

Only a few decades after the death of the Prophet, the caliphate passed into the hands of unscrupulous men,  It was a man's world. Kindness and compassion for the disadvantaged in society including women had all but ceased to exist.

 

Do you think it mattered to them how accurate the translation was? 

 

Women were at the base of society. No harm done in keeping it that way.

 

And by the way, there is not one single instance in the life of the Prophet, the Imams or even any of the Prophet's companions, when anyone is known to have beaten his wife.

 

There must have been 'nagging' and 'mischievous' women even then.

 

Surely men could have used this verse to 'beat' their wives.

 

But not once instance is on record.

So for the past 1400 years of Islamic Scholarship everyone was wrong, even the Infallible Imams, but this random translator has suddenly figured it out for us?

 

Is there any specific  reference that the Imams say that it meant 'beating'? 

[Fatima Hussain]

People are so quick to say others are rejecting what the Qur'an says, but it's obvious they are rejecting the interpretation that it means beating...

[Inspiring Eyes]

I guess you can say that this is islamicallyy allowed, although personally im not very fond of this felsefa.

[Jahangiram]

I guess you can say that this is islamicallyy allowed, although personally im not very fond of this felsefa.

Huwa mujarrad dherib wiyyal miswaak bidoon ellem, min ajal tanbeeh ilmar2a... laa felsefa wa laa ba6eekh.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Jahangiram

[Fatima Hussain]

Huwa mujarrad dherib wiyyal miswaak bidoon ellem, min ajal tanbeeh ilmar2a... laa felsefa wa laa ba6eekh.

You are suppose to speak English in this forum.

[Ali Musaaa :)]

People are so quick to say others are rejecting what the Qur'an says, but it's obvious they are rejecting the interpretation that it means beating...

 

When a Ma'sum says verse x means y and then one outright rejects that (the interpretation of y which was confirmed by an Infallible) then they rejecting the correct interpretation. Do you not agree?

 

I don't know why people are arguing about this. The Tafseers do not say it is a 'beating'. It is a physical strike that is not allowed to cause an ounce of harm or leave any sort of mark. The consensus of Sunni and Shī'ī 'Ulema is that it is one strike and the Imams have even said it is done with a Miswak. 

Is there any specific  reference that the Imams say that it meant 'beating'? 

 

Brother, Jahangiram has already pointed out that it is a single hit that is meant to leave no marks. al-Tusi quotes al-Baqir [as] saying it is to be done with a Miswak and I also mentioned that Allama Tabataba'i quotes al-Sadiq [as] saying the same thing. 

 

The verse does not say men can 'beat' their wives. The Tafseer of the verse do not say this either. My point was that people are coming up with new ways to interpret things contrary to what Infallible Representatives of God have already said. As I said, it could mean 'walk away' but thats not what the Imams have said.

[Tany]

Would "hitting" someone with a miswak even do anything, what would be the point? Might as well blow on their face!

[Ruq]

Would "hitting" someone with a miswak even do anything, what would be the point? Might as well blow on their face!

 

This is something that has confused me to. The hadith restrict this action to such an extent that it seems impotent. If my husband said 'right missy, youve over stepped the line!' and started flicking me with his toothbrush i'd probably fall about in a fit of giggles. A sister once told me it is more of a symbolic thing to shame, so i figure maybe i'd have to appreciate the culture of the time to really understand why that would be effective (?)

[Waiting for HIM]

This is something that has confused me to. The hadith restrict this action to such an extent that it seems impotent. If my husband said 'right missy, youve over stepped the line!' and started flicking me with his toothbrush i'd probably fall about in a fit of giggles. A sister once told me it is more of a symbolic thing to shame, so i figure maybe i'd have to appreciate the culture of the time to really understand why that would be effective (?)

 

That's why I recommend throw (from a safe distance) a whole bunch of Siha-e-Sitta volumes at her. That will sure to produce a bump on her head.  

 

Use the rest of the pages to make paper planes for your kids.

 

As far as tooth brush, the directions are vague so for safekeeping, I'll duct tape my toothbrush at the end of my baseball bat. How does that sound :shaytan:

 

...... or I'll follow the Qur'an and 'move away' thumping my feet on the wood floor and go tie a mutah knot while I've my 'proverbial back at her' and 'not sharing the bed'. :D  :D :D  :D