How is it that the Quran prescribes 'hitting women'?

"And those women from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, and forsake them in bed, and [if they persist] strike them!" This is verse 34 of Surah An-Nisa, the Quran, the holy book of Muslims. Why is there a clear prescription for men to hit women in the holy book of Muslims? Many interpreters and some religious intellectuals have always tried to evade answering this important question by searching for alternative meanings for the verb 'wa daribuhunna' found in Surah An-Nisa. Critics, however, ask whether the existence of such verses in the Quran is one of the signs of the obsolescence of this book and the necessity to reconsider laws derived from it. How can 'hitting women' be one of the commands of the heavenly book from God? In this week's taboo discussion, Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Hossein Tabarsi, the Friday prayer leader in Connecticut, and Mahbubeh Abbasgholi Zadeh, a women's rights activist, debate these questions. Mr. Tabarsi, before we enter the discussion, I would like to ask you to explain the various interpretations that have been made regarding 'wa daribuhunna' that we encounter in Surah An-Nisa for our listeners. The absolute meaning we derive from this phrase is that 'strike them' or 'physically confront them.' Mohammad Hossein Tabarsi: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. It would be good for me to first present the translation of the Quranic verse that appears in Surah An-Nisa. "And righteous women are devoutly obedient to their husbands and guard in [their] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear arrogance, admonish them; and forsake them in bed; and strike them. But if they obey you, seek not against them a means of annoyance. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." Here, it has been translated in two ways. One is the prevailing translation, which is 'striking,' and the other is 'forsaking and distancing.' The first interpretation, which is 'striking,' is the prevailing view of jurists and Quran interpreters, and they even provide a context for this verse, stating that during the time of the Prophet, a woman came to him complaining that her husband had hit her and requested retaliation. This issue was apparently widespread among the women of Medina, unlike those in Mecca. Among the women of Mecca, hitting was apparently not considered inappropriate, and the women themselves accepted hitting, but in Medina, there was more freedom, and women showed sensitivity towards being hit, which is why they came to the Prophet to complain, leading to the revelation of this verse. The prevailing view among jurists is that hitting was prescribed, and the reason for this was that the Battle of Uhud was approaching, and Muslims were reportedly worried that this issue of women's retaliation against men's hitting at home would weaken the morale of Muslims and lead to their defeat in battle. It has been said that perhaps the justification for this issue was that a greater benefit was considered, and for this reason, hitting was prescribed. The second view, which religious intellectuals, especially in our generation, pay much attention to, is that we must see what meanings 'striking' or 'hitting' in the Quran are used in. One of the meanings is the same as we use in Persian. For example, we say 'darab al-mathal.' In fact, the word 'darab' and 'hitting' is used here. 'Darab' is also used in the context of travel. One of the meanings of 'darab' is to travel. 'Darab' or 'hitting' has also been used regarding wearing a hijab and headscarf. This Quranic verse that says 'strike the headscarf or shawl upon your chests' indicates that 'darab' is also used for headscarves. Those who argue that the meaning of 'darab' in this verse is not 'hitting' believe that God did not intend for women to be hit but rather meant that they should be distanced in the third stage. Very well. You have heard Mr. Tabarsi's remarks, Ms. Abbasgholi Zadeh. The Quran does officially say 'wa daribuhunna,' and there are groups who say why such a thing should even be in the Quran that we now want to interpret differently and say this does not mean hitting. On the other hand, there are other places in the Quran that can somehow support this view. For example, 'Men are protectors over women.' As a feminist in the present time, what is your perspective on what many consider a command to hit in the text of the Quran? Mahbubeh Abbasgholi Zadeh: You see, both those who justify and want to use interpretations about the word 'darab' and those who have a direct inference do not pay attention to this feminist point that a power relationship is defined in this matter. There is a woman who is disobedient, does not obey, as they say in jurisprudence, and its example is that she goes out without her husband's permission or sees people her husband has told her not to see, or does not fulfill her sexual obligations to her husband and does not respond to his sexual needs... All of these are considered examples of disobedience and rebellion against the husband, and now how the husband should warn the woman is supposed to happen in three stages, and one of these stages reaches the point that a violent behavior from the man should occur. Whatever name you want to give it. But the word that is used as 'darab' even if it has any other meaning still relates to the fact that a violent behavior should be initiated towards the woman that somehow shocks her. The fact that a power relationship is established between a man and a woman and the man has the right to warn you in various ways and ultimately wants to punish you somehow is not at all acceptable in an equal family. It is very simple. Why should a man be in a position in the family that gives him the right to hold the woman accountable if she does not obey or comply with him? This is not at all the life of our grandmothers but not our life now. Regardless of how the Quran has stated this and whatever interpretation we want to make, the spirit of it and what is seen in the context of these verses relates to an unequal and patriarchal family. Well, Mr. Tabarsi, the remarks made by Ms. Abbasgholi Zadeh lead me to another question. She said this is the life of our grandmothers. I want to go a bit further and say, is life essentially humane? It seems that with the existence of such verses in the holy book of Muslims, which is presumed to be a heavenly and sacred book among Muslims, for men, and women are considered as belongings of men, now there are also laws regarding this, including that if necessary, you can hit your wife. Even if you accept your interpretations and the various interpretations presented regarding the verb 'darab' in the Quran, the question remains why men should be told that women must obey you and given a solution for what to do if they do not obey? Tabarsi: If we pay attention to the appearance of the Quran, it seems to me that it considers men and women in one view. Some even jokingly say that you have a Surah for men in the Quran, but there is no Surah for women. There is Surah An-Nisa, but there is no Surah Al-Rijal. However, this Quranic verse, Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 35, actually places men alongside women and says, 'Men and women who act righteously' or 'believing men and women.' We have many such verses in the Quran, and even the Quran does not accept the Christian theory regarding the creation of man, which states that woman was created from the rib of man. Of course, the issue of 'nushuz' should be discussed, what does 'nushuz' mean? There are two issues. One is that as jurists say, 'nushuz' means that a woman must always be ready for the man's compliance, and if compliance is not performed by the woman, then the state of 'nushuz' is realized, or is 'nushuz' meant something else? The Quran says that righteous women are those who observe the rights of their men in their absence. The Quran intended that, for example, the man should realize that his wife has started to betray him; for instance, suppose he enters the house and sees another man there. The question arises as to what reaction should be taken by the man? Sometimes the reactions can be very severe. This is the Quran's view, which says that instead of resorting to criminal actions, first, advise them, then turn away from them, and if you cannot control it, then perform a light hitting. Even in psychology, this issue has been discussed whether corporal punishment is generally inappropriate or whether, in some cases, corporal punishment is justifiable. Not only against women, for example, regarding children as well. Now in America, this issue is raised whether spanking, which is the same as a light strike for discipline, is right or not? Most states in America do not consider spanking illegal, and even the Supreme Court of America does not consider spanking contrary to the Constitution. First, assuming that a woman has now, in quotes, betrayed her husband, how is it allowed for that man to not kill her but to hit her? Another point is that comparing women and children is a kind of infantilization of women, right? Now, let alone that regarding any physical confrontation with children, the modern world can be very sensitive, but who has said that a woman is subordinate to a man that he can punish or discipline her or decide that now the woman needs this punishment, so I must hit her at a level that is [light]. As Allameh Majlisi says in Bahar al-Anvar, use means that are gentle and, in a way, hit gently... How can these be justified? Ms. Abbasgholi Zadeh, can you enter this discussion here? Abbasgholi Zadeh: Of course, it is quite surprising how we create so many interpretations and justifications for a very clear word called 'wa daribuhunna' and do not come to easily accept that it has come in the Quran. It is not at all about betrayal. It has nothing to do with betrayal. Betrayal is essentially another subject. Why should we go towards these incorrect interpretations? We go towards the jurisprudence of jurists who have based on this verse opened the relationship of marriage between men and women and the chapter of compliance in their jurisprudential books. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini has given a jurisprudential fatwa based on this verse and said that this verse indicates that 'to the eye to the extent' meaning the definition he has given of 'nushuz.' [Based on this] a woman cannot go out without her husband's permission, to any place and anywhere. What is the equivalent of this verse in Iranian civil law? In Iranian civil law, Ms. Khodarahidi has based on this verse created laws regarding passports that women cannot leave the country without men's permission. They cannot leave the city where the man works, even if the woman has a job and wants to go work in another city. The woman wants to become a school teacher; she wants to go to the corner or work in a kindergarten, the man must allow her. This verse is the basis for such laws that control all women's dependency on men in terms of social and political spheres. We must, when discussing the justification of this verse in the Quran, enter the realm of reality. What do we care about what the Constitution says in America? Let's return to Iran and see what impact this has on our daily lives? If all these jurists and interpreters are as embarrassed as it is said here that such a word has been used in the Quran regarding hitting women, why do they not change it in jurisprudence and law? Why is it that to say that the Quran is an egalitarian and humane book, they are willing to write books and articles to justify this verse but do not go to correct the law? Ms. Abbasgholi Zadeh, now aside from the important issues you mentioned and referring to the law that has emerged from Islamic jurisprudence, the very existence of such ideas for dealing with humans - now the female gender in this context - in the holy book of Muslims can also be thought-provoking. I want to return to Mr. Tabarsi and point out that it is not only in Surah An-Nisa. If I am mistaken, please correct me, Mr. Tabarsi. In another part of the Quran, even the Prophet Job is advised regarding a matter to 'take the thin branches of the palm tree and strike your wife.' What kind of model does this provide to the Muslim woman? Suppose we live in a society where its laws are not Islamic; the question here is what kind of model does this give to a Muslim individual who adheres to his holy book? Tabarsi: We must examine the verses of the Quran with regard to the customs of the time of the Quran's revelation. The culture of hitting was a prevalent culture at that time, and Islam sought to change it, and that is why there is even a hadith that Aisha said she never saw the Prophet of God hit a woman or a servant. Also, the Prophet himself said, how is it that you hit your wife and at the same time sleep with her? The fact that the Prophet Muhammad never hit any of his wives is historically certain. It is very important for us to know that during the time of the Prophet, the behavior towards women was very violent, and on the other hand, the Quran and Islam could not change these habits and customs overnight. It's like saying why 150 years ago in various countries, including Western countries, there was slavery. Well, these are issues that existed. We cannot now criticize matters based on that in our time.