if oceans were ink

a rhapsody

Notes on 4:34

When traditional reports and secondary source biases are projected onto the Quran,
much of its meaning becomes tragically lost in translation. This is what has happened
with verse 4:34.

What amazed me when I studied this verse was that its really not that dicult to
understand. It doesnt warrant an exegesis of the length that I have compiled. It is a fairly
understandable and straightforward verse, discussing household maintenance and
division of labor. Its applicable to everyday life.

When the meanings of the words in 4:34 are cross-referenced, their denitions become
readily apparent, and a coherent picture forms. The verse is no longer dicult to
understand.It all makes sense.

The reason I had to write such a long exegesis was that verse 4:34 is shrouded in layers of
religious apologetics, biased confusion, and complicated attempted explanations. Its
original meaning has been obfuscated to such a degree that it took me nearly 3 years to

arrive at an understanding of the verse. However, when I look at the verse now, it seems
arrive at an understanding of the verse. However, when I look at the verse now, it seems
plain to me. It is strange indeed that such a relatively mundane verse has caused so much
confusion throughout history.

The Quran is a book fully claried and fully detailed. It contains everything we need to
understand verse 4:34. God is just, and the Qurans directives are in line with justice.
When ones mind is cleared of prejudices and complex apologetics, 4:34s meaning
becomes manifest. And its seriously not that complicated.

Verse 4:34 is also incredibly mind-blowing to me, because it is so adept at distinguishing

hypocrites from sincere students of the Quran. The verse is very easy to twist and misuse.
When people misinterpret it, their uncertainty and ignorance are clear for all to see.

Some of the words used in 4:34 are ambiguous, and for good reason. The verse was
revealed for a purpose. Its a test of mankinds ability to distinguish Truth from falsehood.
When the verse is scrutinized with sincerity, the words meanings become clear.

InMisquoting Muhammad, Professor Jonathan Brown says that verse 4:34 symbolizes a
crisis of scripture in the modern world. Hes right. 4:34 is a turning point where human
morality, trah,Quranic directives, and tradition all clash. This verse isnt just a
paragraph about household management; its a study of the evolution of Islam over 1,400
years.

Jonathan Brown correctly notes that unless we divorce ourselves completely from
tradition, it is impossible to assert that verse 4:34 does not condone striking ones wife
(paraphrased). Again, hes right. If 4:34 is understood as condoning striking ones wife, it
causes dozens of internal contradictions throughout the Quran. Yet we cant nd another
meaning fordarabawithout overturning hundreds of years of classical scholarship.

A crisis of scripture, indeed.

Unless we divorce ourselves from extra-Quranic traditions, we must accept that verse
4:34 condones unjust violence, and conicts with the rest of the Quran. This means we
must accept that the Quran is not infallible. It means we must accept that Gods Word is
contradictory and inconsistent.

This is unacceptable.

Thus, Dr. Jonathan Brown (accidentally) proves that it isabsolutely necessaryfor Muslims
to interpret the Quran without secondary source inuence. Wemustoverturn years of
classical scholarship, unless we want the Quran to conict with itself. Wemustadmit that
our own scholars have made fundamental mistakes in their understanding of the Quran.
Because they have.

Its a choice. Which will we upholdthe divinity and perfection of Gods Word, or the
words of scholars?

Verse 4:34 presents a test for mankind and for Muslims in particular, placing them at a
fork in the road. Its also an invitation to further inquiry, a way of imploring us to
examine Gods Word, unmired by secondary inuences.

God wants us to think for ourselves. He wants us to ponder upon His Word. He wants us
God wants us to think for ourselves. He wants us to ponder upon His Word. He wants us
to understand it. We have been gifted with the ability to reason. It would behoove us to
use it.

We cant demand that other people do all the work for us.

But thats what Muslims have been doing. Scholars interpret the Quran so we dont have
to.

Thomas Edison was right when he said, There is no expedient to which man will not
resort to avoid the labor of thinking.

Muslims are now suffering the consequences of their actions. When we desert Gods
guidance and instead rely on scholars to relay it to us, we sentence ourselves to
Jahannam. Its a trickle-down effectmisinterpretations of the Quran become
mainstream. Religious minorities, women, and children are primarily affected.

The misinterpretation of verse 4:34 is not the issue in itself. Its symptomatic of
everything wrong with ourummah. Its the effect, not the cause, of our fall from power.
Women are disproportionately affected by twisted understandings of the Quran, but its
notjustthem. Other verses of the Quran, in conjunction with secondary sources, have
been misused to justify slavery, the murder of apostates, and the oppression of
Shias/Ahmadis. Women are just one affected group, and 4:34 is just one misunderstood
verse.

The following is a summary/overview of my ndings on verse 4:34, and of the deceptive

methods translators often use.

Verse 4:34 lays out household responsibilities regarding maintenance, management and
nances.The beginning of the verse states that men are the Q-W-M (Arabic root) of
women with what (Arabic:bimaa) God has bestowed some over others, and with what
they spend of their wealth. The root Q-W-M literally means to stand. When used with a
preposition and an object, it gives the sense of protecting/securing someone or
something, or being responsible for the maintenance/management of an individual. It
also gives the sense of continuously or repeatedly looking after ones affairs and
sustaining them/ensuring that they are working correctly.

The Quran makes it abundantly clear that men are responsible for the nancial upkeep
of their households, and conrms this through the usage of with what they spend from
their wealth. The linkage withwealthindicates that men are Q-W-M of women through
their nancial expenditure, or with it (Arabic: bi). The meaning of this terminology is
fairly straightforward unless one wishes to change it because it conicts with their
worldview.

Unfortunately, a few traditional translators have projected a dominance-obedience

monopoly onto verse 4:34 by rendering it to mean, Men arein charge ofwomen
byrightof what they spend from their wealth (see Sahih International). According to

them, women owe men (i.e. husbands) obedience because said men maintain them
them, women owe men (i.e. husbands) obedience because said men maintain them
nancially. This interpolation is unwarranted by the original Quranic Arabic. It also
conicts with a number of other Quranic verses.

Verse 4:34 goes on to say that righteous women are Q-N-T, or displayqunut
(devotion/obedience).Qunutis further dened by the clause, guarding in the Unseen
with what God has guarded. This clause conrms that honorable women are those who
are devoted/obedient or evencooperate withGod, guarding what He wishes them to
guard, in secret or in private. This could refer to guarding ones morals when nobody is
watching.

Most traditional translators instead renderqunutas denoting obedience to husbands,

even inserting the word husband into the text within parentheses (see Sahih
International, Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan). This interpolation, again, conicts with the
original Arabic. However, if one is unfamiliar with the Qurans untranslated language,
these mistranslations may not be immediately obvious.

Multiple translators also limit guarding in the Unseen/secretwith what God has
guarded to guarding the property of ones husband, or guarding ones chastity (see
Mohsin Khan). This may bepartof the verses intended meaning. However, the Unseen or
secret (Arabic:Al-Ghayb) is used throughout the Quran in a variety of contexts. It refers
mainly to the secret aspects of the heavens and the earth, and to the parts of ones soul
that are hidden to all but God.Al-Ghaybis a word of extraordinary philosophical
weight [Nahida S. Nisa]. Restricting it unnecessarily, as many translators have done,
makes a mockery of Gods Word.

Guarding in the Unseen/secretwith what God has guarded refers to a wide duty of
guarding ones morals in private. It seems to denote a duty of guarding whatever God has
ordered to be guarded via Scripture.

Verse 4:34 goes on to discuss women from whomN-SH-Z is feared. N-SH-Z refers to
rebellion or ill-conduct, and it is also used in relation to men (4:128). Traditional
commentators have rendered it asdisobedience, which reinforces the un-Quranic
dominance-obedience marriage construct. Amusingly, deningnushuzas disobedience
also insinuates that men must be obedient to their wives as per its usage in verse 4:128.
Traditional translators biases backre sometimes!

When men fearnushuzfrom their wives, they are instructed to advise them, leave them
alone in bed, and D-R-B them. An analysis ofdarabas usage throughout the rest of the
Quran conrms that its primary meaning is to cite/indicate someone/something as a case
in point or as an example. In verse 4:34,darabais used to mean citing/referring these
women to the authorities, who will then appoint arbitrators according to verse 4:35.

This is the only understanding that provides a link to verse 4:35. It is also
theonlyunderstanding that is consistent with the Qurans general usage of D-R-B, and
with classical Arabic dictionaries usage of the term.

Other interpretations, such as beat them, strike them (Sahih International),

shun/turn away from them (Joseph Islam), go away from them (Laleh Bakhtiar), and
even go to bed with them (Ahmed Ali) are thoroughly inconsistent with D-R-Bs

standard Quranic usage and with other explicit Quranic verses that clearly negate such
standard Quranic usage and with other explicit Quranic verses that clearly negate such
understandings.

Traditional commentators engage in a great deal of interpretive acrobatics when it comes

to verse 4:34. Many state that women can be struck, but not harshly (dharban ghayran
mubarrih). Others state that the beating should be done while avoiding her face and
should not cause bruising or scarring. Still others insist that the beating should be done
lightly, with a miswakor a rolled-up handkerchief.

Not one traditional commentator ortafsir writer uses the Quran itself to justify their
view.

Traditional translators are clearly confused when it comes to verse 4:34. They
desperately attempt to reconcile beating ones wife with the directive to live with them
[women] in kindness/honor even if you [men] dislike them (4:19). They end up
performing elaborate apologetics rather than putting together an honest assessment of
the verse.

Multiple panels and lawmakers throughout the Muslim world have attracted controversy
by bringing the proposed beat them lightly injunction into actual legal practice (see
Pakistanand Saudi Arabia). Muslim women have reactedby pointing out the paradoxical
and harmful absurdity of such ordinances.

The Quran makes it abundantly clear that violence against women is a criminal act and
an act oftnah(oppression). Even when divorce is taking place, the Quran explicitly
forbids men from straitening/harming/oppressing their wives in any way:

When ye divorce women, and they full the term of their (Iddat), either take them
back on equitable/kind terms or set them free on equitable/kind terms; but do not
take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage; if any one does
that; He wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allahs Signs as a jest, but solemnly
rehearse Allahs favours on you, and the fact that He sent down to you the Book and
Wisdom, for your instruction. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is well acquainted
with all things. 2:231

Ye who believe! It is forbidden for you to inherit women against their will. Nor
should you make diculties for them, that ye may take away part of what you have
given them. And live with them in kindness. It may be that you dislike a thing and
God makes therein much good. 4:19

It is clear from these verses that oppressing a woman by inicting harm on her is
fullyharam.The Quran states in several places that oppression is worse than murder
(Surah Baqarah/2:191), and that murdering just one innocent soul is equivalent to
slaying all of mankind (5:32). Thus, perpetratingtnah/oppressionis a sinof greater
magnitude than murdering the entire human race.

I beseech Muslims to think about this.

Oppressing another human being, particularly ones wife, is not a matter of minor
Oppressing another human being, particularly ones wife, is not a matter of minor
misconduct. It is equivalent to amajor sinin the eyes of Allah, one that can potentially be
met with eternal damnation in Hell.

Mistranslating verse 4:34 to justify violence against women constitutes enjoining wrong
actions and prohibiting good actions, which is the antithesis of what God commands
believing men and women to do (9:71). Such a misinterpretation overturns fundamental
Quranic principles and embodies hypocrisy.

So how do traditional translators justify this clear contradiction?

Many translators indicate that open lewdness or wrongdoing/fahisha mubayyinahhas

been committed by the women in question, thus allegedly justifying physical
punishment. However, the Quran says that wrongdoing/N-SH-Z is merely feared, thus it
is unproven. How can one be physically disciplined for anunprovenwrongdoing? This
is a blatantly unjust and unIslamic concept.

Wakas Muhammad writes [emphasis mine]:

I would like to end with reecting on the concept inherent in the traditional/common
understanding of 4:34, and that is to punish another based on a fear/suspicion
because one is in a position of power to do so. An act inherently unjust to the ordinary
person, but when it comes to practices in the name of a religion, people will commit
the most heinous of acts, no matter how irrational. But how wicked is such an act? Let
us all turn to The Quran for an answer.

This same word fear (Arabic root: Kha-Waw-Fa) occurs 120 times in The Quran and
there are other examples in which believers fear something (e.g. fear injustice/sin
from one making a statement [2:182], fear not maintaining Gods bounds [2:229], fear
not acting justly to the orphans or their mother in marriage [4:3], fear betrayal from
those with a treaty [8:58], fear unexpected visitors [38:22]) and in ALL cases there is
not a mention of resorting to physical violence. To my utmost surprise there was only
one example showing punishment or threat of physical punishment based on a
fear/suspicion, and the gure threatening to do such a thing was the undisputed
greatest tyrannical archetype in The Quran: Pharaoh.

And Pharaoh said: Leave me to kill Moses, and let him call upon his Lord. I fear that
he may change your system, or that he will cause evil to spread throughout the land.
(40:26)
Would God sanction believers to act in a manner that in any way could be likened to
the greatest of all tyrants?

Please reect upon this story of Pharaoh, and the justication he gives, the next time
someone advocates physical punishment based on a fear in 4:34.

Indeed. How and why would God command believers to act in the same manner as
thegreatest tyrant in the history of mankind?
Please reect.
Please reect.

Verse 4:34 goes on to tell men, then if they obeyed/heeded/complied with you
(Arabic:atanakum), then do not seek a way against/over them. Unlike Q-N-T,ata(root
taa-waw-ayn) implies obedience/compliance with another human being; i.e. ones
husband.

The resumption particlefa(then/so) is used at the beginning of the sentence, indicating

that this obedience refers to something in context. In 4:34, it denotes compliance with
the husbands attempts at reconciliation.

Notice that the Quran never says women must comply with the steps taken by a husband
in verse 4:34; instead, the command is directed solely atmen. If women comply with
their reconciliatory attempts, men arecommandednot to seek a path/pursue a case
against them.

This is consistent with the Qurans usual method of address. Women are not addressed
directly; rather, men are warned about their interactions with women and told to
maintain decency.

Some translators render if they heeded/obeyed you as if theyreturn to obedience(see

Sahih International, Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan). This is an erroneous and faulty translation.

The verse ends with, And Allah is High, Great. A warning. And a warranted one, it
seems.

Verse 4:35 begins by commanding athird partyto appoint arbitrators if they fear a
breach (Arabic: shiqaqa)between the couple. One would ask, how does this third party
come to fear a breach? The Quran repeatedly commands believers not to spy, backbite or
slander each other. Thus it is highly unlikely that an authority/third party would fear a
breach between a couple without having been explicitly informed that either the
husband or the wife was causing marital problems.

Traditionaltafsirwriters fail to explain the sequence of events in verse 4:35. According to

them, arbitrators are to be miraculously appointedafterphysical violence has allegedly
been permitted. How does this work?

Clearly, the only way arbitrators can be appointed is if the authorities areinformedthat
there is a problem, thus leading them to fear that the problem is bad enough to warrant
societal intervention. When 4:34 is read in conjunction with 4:35, it becomes obvious that
the women in question must bebrought forth/citedto the authorities before arbitration
takes place. There is no other viable option.

When 4:34 is interpreted correctly, the confusion regarding verse 4:35 is easily
eliminated, as is the contradiction with other verses of the Quran.

Most traditional translators have summarized verse 4:34 to mean that women are
Most traditional translators have summarized verse 4:34 to mean that women are
required to obey their husbands, their alleged superiors. Therefore, if a woman disobeys
her husband, he has the right to discipline her physically, by beating her lightly.

This understanding contradicts the Arabic wording of verse 4:34, and conicts with the
rest of the Quran.

In actuality, verse 4:34 clearly says nothing of the sort. It simply states that men are
responsible for the upkeep of their households, so (Arabic:fa) women have a parallel
responsibility to maintain their morals and guard what God guards (being qanitat). If bad
behavior (nushuz)/failure to obey Gods commands is apprehended from a woman,
reconciliatory steps must be taken, and authorities should potentially get involved. If the
woman cooperates, the issue should be dropped and a way against her should not be
sought.

This understanding becomes readily apparent when verse 4:34 is cross-referenced and
prejudices are left behind. If I should dare say so, its really not that dicult.

4:34 has nothing to do with intimidation, domestic violence, cruelty or monopolies on

marital authority. It has to do with maintenance, management and reconciliation. This is
obvious when the verse is looked at with impartial eyes.

And Allah does not intend injustice for the worlds. 3:108

I ask, again, that Muslimsreect.

If the traditional understanding is adopted, verse 4:34 becomes impossible to reconcile

with other Quranic verses. It becomes far too convoluted to follow in real life.

But 4:34 is clearlymeantfor real life. Its not supposed to be impossible to understand. Its
supposed to be applicable to daily life. It contains clear instructions about marital
discord, arbitration, and divorce processes. These arelegal and civic matters, not
allegorical pontications about jinn and angels.

If we pay attention to the Quran and follow its directives, 4:34 becomes easy to
comprehend. It is just, reasonable, and consistent with Islamic teachings.

I know women (and men!) who have lost their faith over this one mistranslated verse of
the Quran. There are other women whose lives have been ruined through twisted
misinterpretations of it. The consequences are too great to ignore.

We cannot assume that others will do all the work and interpret the Quran for us. We
cannot ignore this verse or assign apologetic explanations to it simply because it makes
us uncomfortable to confront it.

We have to investigate it. We have tothink. And then we will be rewarded. The Quran is
We have to investigate it. We have tothink. And then we will be rewarded. The Quran is
fully claried, and God guides sincere seekers of the Truth.

No verse of the Quran is written haphazardly. Everything is deliberate. If we examine

verse 4:34 instead of shrinking away from it, everything becomes clear.

Advertisements

Published by Imaan

Islam is an inception of compassion. You will never convince me otherwise. Many have
tried. Dreaming of crystal starlight, rose galaxies, sapphire waterfalls, and beautiful

things. View all posts by Imaan

May 29, 2017
Uncategorized
 May 29, 2017
Uncategorized

4 thoughts on Notes on 4:34

1. hummingbird
says:
June 28, 2017 at 12:21 pm
Wow! This is a great post!

Another possibility on why daraba is used specically is because the Quran contains
advice intended for all of humanity, including Muhammad (sws).

He (sws) was the head of state, so which authorities could he report to for mediation?
Some scholars say that he turned away from his wives when angry with them, so
daraba has a dual meaning.of turn away specic to Muhammad (sws) and the
meaning of cite for everyone else.

1. Imaan
says:
June 30, 2017 at 2:19 am
Youre right. The word can also mean shun them/disregard them/ leave them, and
as Muhammad was the authority at that time, he wouldnt be referring his wives to
the courts. He WAS the court. So in his case, it would likely have been shun.
There are examples in hadith where he separated from his wives, though hadiths
are mixed and inconclusive on the issue. Also, early Qurans did not have diacritical
marks, and this is important. The original Quran would just have contained the
unembellished consonants D-R-B, read in the imperative form. They could have
been understood in a variety of ways.

1. Imaan
says:
July 14, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Also, the meaning present/cite/bring forth/put forth them is quite similar to
shun them. Taken from quranverse434.com:

In the expression them in verse 4:34, the word them referring to

wives / women in this context would be the direct object pronoun, whereas
is the transitive verb. Taking the basic meaning of as an imperative
with a direct object, in English this takes the meaning of put forth them / shun
them / leave them without any need to use a preposition. Whenever the word
Da-Ra-Ba is used in the Quran without a preposition, it has the meaning
of putting something forth or putting something forward, an expression
which effectively can mean to turn away from or go forth from someone.
Verse 43:57 uses Da-Ra-Ba as a transitive verb with a human object,
similar to verse 4:34, where Prophet Jesus is put forth or put forward as an
example. Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also
 example. Keeping in mind that an act of separation or withdrawal is also
effectively a form of putting forth or going forth from something or someone,
this example provides consistency in the Quranic usage of the verb. In other
words, the imperative expression in verse 4:34 can be rendered literally in
English as put forth them (or put them forth), providing the meaning of
shunning or leaving them.

The author of this article is correct that the most linguistically consistent literal
rendition of the phrase is put forth them, which could translate either to going
forth from them, or citing them/presenting them, as an example or a case in
point. Arabic linguistics are truly fascinating.

2. Humza
says:
July 23, 2017 at 1:31 pm
I posted your article a section of Reddit that Quran-only people often visit and got the
following comment:

Im glad I kept reading. I only got to read part of it before i left and I had no idea
what happened in the second half. Brilliant interpretation. It does make the most
sense of every interpretation Ive ever read of that verse. Thank you! I hope others
will take the time to read it. Denitely worth it!

via
https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/comments/6ojnck/notes_on_quran_434/

WORDPRESS.COM.

UP