Before I begin, I would like to clarify that The Quran asserts that it is a universal scripture, meant for all

times and periods. It must, as such, stand the test of time as societies develop and values/morals change.
The gender roles which men and women take up today have changed drastically from the way they were
in the 7th Century post-Islamic Arabia.

Contemporary society treats men and women as equals, especially when it comes to relationships and
specifically, Marriage. Both the parties share equal responsibilities, including work, household tasks, the
upbringing of children and other miscellaneous family affairs. This is because the female has been granted
equal opportunities in a plethora of fields which were once dominated by men for example politics. The
post-Islamic society, of course, did not consider men and women at equal footing. According to the
historical evidence we have, the hadith and tafaseer, it Is clear that the man served as the head of the
household and was the sole earner. Now, this supposed position of authority that has been bestowed
upon the man could be considered justifiable if one perceives the woman as being unable to earn for
herself. If the Quran truly stood for equality why could it not have stated something along the lines of
“Indeed God considers the male and the female as equals, upon each of them is the responsibility to earn
livelihood and raise their children.”? In this Hadith the Prophet explains how women are considered
inferior to men,

“Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha
or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority
of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You
curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence
and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O
Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women
equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her
intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the
affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301”

The Shia equivalent of this hadith is a sermon in the Nahjul Balagha, by Ali Ibn Abi Talib:

“O people! Women are deficient in Faith, deficient in shares and deficient in intelligence. As regards the
deficiency in their Faith, it is their abstention from prayers and fasting during their menstrual period.

As regards deficiency in their intelligence it is because the evidence of two women is equal to that of one
man. As for the deficiency of their shares that is because of their share in inheritance being half of men.
So beware of the evils of women. Be on your guard even from those of them who are (reportedly) good.
Do not obey them even in good things so that they may not attract you to evils.” (Sermon 80)

Of course, one might argue that these statements are inauthentic or cannot be verified, However, if that
is so then It would be preferable to discard these resources as a whole since cherry-picking
ahadiths/sayings which do not coincide with one’s world views and discarding them only would be
hypocritical.

One might, at this point feel inclined to giving the example of Khudijah, who was a wealthy, independent
and widowed woman. However, she was a product of the pre-Islamic Arabian society and passed away
quite some time before Islam even established itself.
Now, coming to the specific verse which supposedly condones domestic abuse and is considered the crux
of misogyny within the Islamic scripture. It is imperative that one first considers the verse as a whole and
how it might be relevant to the present day. Let us look at the “reformed translation” provided by
Dr.Shabbir Ahmed:

“Men are the protectors and supporters of women. They shall take full care of women with what they
spend of their wealth. God has made men to excel in some areas and women to excel in some areas. Men
should ensure that women are able to stand at their feet in the society. So, righteous women are obedient
to God’s Ordinances and guard the moral values even in privacy, the values that God has commanded to
be guarded. If you experience ill-treatment from them, apprise them of possible consequences. Next,
leave them in their resting places, and refer them to the appropriate authority (or arbiters). If they pay
heed to you, do not seek a way against them. God is Most High, Great.”

(The underlined statements are not a part of the original verse and will thus be disregarded)

Yet again, this verse is mired in blatant misogyny. Let us deconstruct it.

Men are the protectors and supporters of women. They shall take full care of women with what they spend
of their wealth

This is unequivocally insinuating that women do no possess the capacity to take care of themselves. Why
do women need protection and support? Of course, there may be periods during a woman’s life in which
she may require assistance i.e. during pregnancy, however, that does not diminish a woman’s position
relative to that of a man. This statement, if it truly denoted equality should have read as,

“Men are the protectors and supporters of women and women are the protectors and supporters of men.
They shall take full care of women with what they spend of their wealth and the same goes for women
who shall care for their husbands with whatever resources they can muster”

So, righteous women are obedient to God’s Ordinances and guard the moral values even in privacy, the
values that God has commanded to be guarded.

Here, God enjoins obedience upon the woman. The “even in privacy” refers to situations where the
Husband would be absent. Quite strange that a similar quotation is not offered for men but of course,
men are allowed to take up more than one wife and can also partake in concubinage according to Islam
(4:3), (23:6).

“If you experience ill-treatment from them, apprise them of possible consequences. Next, leave them in
their resting places, and refer them to the appropriate authority (or arbiters). If they pay heed to you, do
not seek a way against them. God is Most High, Great.”

Again, somehow, God is commanding the Man to carry out a series of steps in progression to ensure that
his wife complies with his demands. There are no such injunctions for wives who might fear disobedience
from their husbands. The only verse that remotely hints at such a thing is (4:128). This verse exhorts the
two parties to make peace, however, why is there such a disparity between the actions to be taken by the
husbands and those to be taken by the wife?
For the mistranslation part I’ll refer to a rebuttal from an individual knowledgeable in Quranic Arabic and
then I’ll give my views on why such a mistranslation invalidates the Quran’s claim to divine authorship.
 It is quite ironic that to this day, Muslims are still disputing over the meanings and translations of the
verses of a scripture which claims that it has been revealed in an articulate and pellucid style.

“A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know,” (41:3)
“[All] praise is [due] to Allah, who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made
therein any deviance.” (18:1)
“By the Book that makes things clear” (44:2)
Would it not have been better if Allah had used a better choice of words when He considered revealing
these verses? He could have prevented many cases of domestic abuse carried out in His name and much
dispute. The fact that men had the agency to manipulate His word, which He himself claims to be
impeccable is quite startling in itself. The men who translated these verses were experts in their fields and
most certainly had proficiency with regards to understanding the nuances in the Quranic Arabic, grammar
and lexicon. For them to make such an error does not signify a conspiracy by misogynistic men to debase
women but rather the failure of a supposedly divine author to deliver His scripture unequivocally. If this
single word was mistranslated then many others could have been too. Are we really following the
injunctions of God? Furthermore, the word “idriboo” has various other meanings as well, here are some
examples:

And what other possible meaning than beat, could fit in the verse, and make sense?

To travel, to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273

To strike: 2: 60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
To beat: 8:50; 47:27
To set up: 43:58; 57:13
To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21;
66:10,11
To take away, to ignore: 43:5
To condemn: 2: 61
To seal, to draw over: 18:11
To cover: 24:31
To explain: 13:17

Seems like God was at a loss of words or perhaps had limited vocabulary, thus he used similar words in
verses with varying contexts to convolute his scripture even more.

References

Rebuttal to the Arabic mistranslation

https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=26716.0