Wife-Beating in the Qur’an, or Erotic Phrasing For Aggressive… Lovemaking?
The first time i read a translation of the Qur’an, i was astonished by many strange terms, that did not seem to fit with the context and character of the work. To me, the text fit with the style and even phrasing of many of the, then recently translated Dead Sea Scrolls. There was more than a hint of similarity with the Second Temple Era Jewish Apocalyptic genre, as well. So why were there so many passage that at once lauded the Jewish people, and in another instance would seem to damn us? To answer this, i would engage in decades of research, Arabic study, and eventually compose the first of two masters theses on the matter, in the work, People of the Book: What the Religions Named in the Qur’an Can Tell Us About the Earliest Understanding of “Islam”.
There was another passage, as well, that stood out… that was the infamous ayah which allegedly gives a husband permission to “beat his wife” – often with the condition interpolated – “lightly.”
It would turn out that the alleged denunciations of the Jewish people, as well as this passage, were not in fact attributes of Qur’anic content, but instead the whims and fancies of Qur’anic translators, seeking to Divinely-justify and legitimize their crimes of antisemitism, misogyny and domestic violence.
To begin with, i must note that understanding proper tafsir exegesis of this ayah is precisely why study of both pre-Qur’anic sources of poetry (which the Qur’an was showing up in eloquence), as well as the lingua franca of the educated throughout the Middle East then – Aramaic – is essential. Qur’anic Arabic certainly became the standardized form of Arabic. Nevertheless, this compilation of orations of Muhammad was itself composed of several regional “Arabic” dialects of Aramaic – which nearly always and only used the Nabatean script, but in the Qur’an seems to have employed a modified Syriac script which became known as “Kufic”.
This too is a topic for future elaboration. The scholar of Semitic linguistics, for instance, will notice the common six irregular plural forms of Ge`ez, which creep into many passages of the Qur’an – likely during the exile in the Ethiopian Kingdom of Axum. Thus, we see the normative kaffirin and kaffirun, yet elsewhere see kuffar. This indicates two different audiences preserving the oration. Again, this is a topic which an entire dissertation could be written on, so it is far beyond the scope of this article to address the matter in further detail.
Understanding this, one quickly sees that the term in question within the aforementioned Qur’anic ayah, in Surat an-Nisa, refers to a final step in sexual punishment, after having starved the suspected adulteress from sexual contact. The ayah thus says, essentially that “if that didn’t work, then it’s this – this is the problem and you should engage her accordingly…” It then instructs the man to “beat” her. Often, it is interpolated that this should be “lightly,” and centuries later ahadith would indeed emerge to indicate that this was the prevailing tafsir of the `ulema, but there is no contextual linguistic indication that this was the case. Certainly, however, the ayah does imply a “beating” that is done lightly and lovingly – but this is supposed to be inferred as sexual in nature – not in terms of domestic violence, but in terms of vigorous and aggressive love-making.
To expound further and more specifically, the dh-r-b (ضرب) root does mean “to hit” but also literally means to “pound” and “impact” or “pommel” and “thrash.” It can and also is still used to mean someone is a “go getter” – simply meaning that they are exhibiting “aggressive energy.” As well, this is said to be the final step to satisfy a woman who is experiencing dissatisfaction, who you perhaps even fear is looking elsewhere to have her sexual needs met. The root here is n-sh-z (نشز) and means dissatisfaction literally, but it is never rendered as such in translations nor tafsir.
Thus, an honest reading, bearing in mind cognate usage in the Aramaic lingua franca of the time, renders the ayah as follows:
Men are straightening assets (قَوَّٰمُونَ) of women, [protecting against men who would exploit them] by that which Allah has given one over the other [in physical strength and testosterone], as well as by what they expend from their wealth. So righteous women are devout, guarding in the unseen (لِّلْغَيْبِ) what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear [sexual] dissatisfaction (نشز) – [first] admonish them; [then if they persist], abandon them in bed [alone] – let them sleep by themselves – and [if that does not solve the problem], aggressively attack them them (ٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ) [in bed]. But if they submit to you [sexually], from the “impaling” (طعن), seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا
Qur’an, Surat an-Nisa, ayah 34
Interestingly, this is consistent with the poetic use of the term in Arabic poetry, where the word indicates what colloquially in English, would be crassly rendered as “beat it up.”
Certainly, this is not the manner in which all women desire lovemaking. That is precisely why the Qur’an is indicating that first and foremost, refrain from sex with her… as maybe you are simply having sex with her more often than she actually desires. It is saying back off a bit. Then, if all else has failed, the woman’s sexual dissatisfaction with you may simply be that you are being too “gentle.”
But how can you, the reader, be certain of this? What if this is just the bizarre tafsir of a perverse Jewish scholar of Islam, such as fundamentalists no doubt would consider me? We can we be further certain of this because whenever the imperative verb idhrib is used in the Quran to denote striking whether idiomatically or otherwise, the Qur’an always qualifies it with one or both of the following:
- What object to use to strike with, and / or
- What part of the body or object to strike
We see the following relevant examples:
- Strike the rock (2) with your staff (1) (2:60)
- Strike him (2) with a part of it (heifer) (1) (2:73)
- Strike the rock (2) with your staff (1) (7:160)
- Strike off their heads (2) and strike off every fingertip (2) of them (8:12)
- Strike off every fingertip (2) of them (8:12)
- Strike, or split open for them a dry path in the sea (20:77)
- Strike the sea (2) with your staff (1) (26:63)
- Take in your hand a bundle of twigs (1), and strike with it (38:44)
Linguistically, as we have seen above, the Qur’an always says what to beat with or where to beat, when using this verb. This is the only time it doesn’t, which politely and discretely indicates “you know where and with what.”
It is only in ayah 4:34 that we see that the imperative verb idhrib neither tells us (1) what object to use to strike with nor (2) what part of the body to strike. This has led some apologists to conclude that a secondary meaning of “separate” should be employed here. Indeed, we see in one of the aforementioned examples, that the verb is used to both mean strike and split open the sea. Here too, bearing in mind the Qur’an was orated within the context of standing superior to popular forms of Arabic poetry of the day, we might see a poetic allegory at play. The Qur’an, however, is not going to articulate this matter in a crass way. It is not going to spell out what part of the woman’s body is to be “beaten up” with what part of the man’s body. So it employs this verb that is used in the Qur’an to mean “beat” and “split open” or “divide.”
It is this context of “separation” that the verb indicates – not separation as in divorce. Indeed, that type of separation is indistinguishable from the Qur’anic term talaq, for divorce. A case in point, I knew a Muslimah many years ago who engaged to a married man, who had told her in English, that he was “separated” from his wife. She found out later that they were not divorced and was none too pleased with the brother. And yet, he had neither lied nor tried to deceive her. The meaning was simply lost in translation.
Here then, if the Qur’an wished to indicate divorce, it would have simply used its normal phrasing of talaq. It is, instead, saying something quite different. It is giving bedroom advice to men.
Apparently, many within the divided Muslim Ummah have rejected this advice, and instead turned to later ahadith and tafasir to justify domestic violence. Perhaps, if such “men” heeded the words of the Qur’an, which they allege to see as Divinely revealed, then their wives would be much more satisfied.
…and, as it is said, Allah knows Best.