by Dr. Ali Shehata
Wife-beating
In this section, a momentary departure will be taken from the usual format of this section in order to first discuss the Islamic position, before that of Judeo-Christian texts. The issue of wife beating in Islam is an unfortunate source of much misconception, and, often times, outright malicious and misleading inaccuracies throughout Western critiques on Islam. Yet, should be known that the Islamic stance on domestic violence is that it is absolutely prohibited. This prohibition comes directly from the words of the Prophet who on several occasions instructed his followers not to beat their wives.
Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri narrated, "I went to the Messenger of God and asked him, ‘What do you command us regarding our wives?’ He replied, ‘Feed them from what you eat yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.’” [Abu Dawud]
So then, why is there so much controversy over this issue when it appears that the Prophet clearly prohibited his followers from beating their wives? The source of this criticism can be traced back to one passage in the Quran which discusses the step-wise management and resolution of marital discord between the husband and his wife:
Men are in charge of women by right of what God 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 God 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, God is ever Exalted and Grand. {4:34}
Hence, the controversial portion of this passage is that which states “strike them”. But, like any other statement in the Quran, its meaning will be demonstrated by both other passages in the Quran as well as the behavior and words of the Prophet.
Firstly, the word in the verse does convey the meaning of striking in a physical sense as has been mentioned in every book of early Quranic commentary. Those who seek to re-interpret the Quran by changing the meaning of this word have little ground to stand upon. But, the striking that is spoken of herein must be understood in the correct sense.
Striking another person can be done in two ways: (1) violently, abusively and with the intent to cause physical injury and pain, or (2) symbolically with the intent to alert the other person to something important. This second meaning can be inferred from the commonly used English phrase, “a slap on the wrist”, which is understood to mean a gentle warning or light punishment. This meaning also occurs in many Middle East countries where a gentle slap on the back of the neck represents displeasure with that person’s actions or words. Neither “a slap on the wrist”, nor the slap on the nape in the Middle East, brings about any injury or pain, but they do have notable symbolic meanings. So can this verse then be understood to be symbolic only? Yes.
As mentioned above, it is a
principle of Quranic commentary that a verse from the Quran cannot be
understood independent of other parts of the Quran. Thus, in order to better
understand the verse in question, we should see what else the Quran says about
dealing with wives:
... Do not retain your wives to harm them ... {2:231}
If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves. And such settlement is best, even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if you do good and practice self-restraint, God is well acquainted with all that you do. {4:128}
And among God's signs are that He created for you spouses from among yourselves that you might find tranquility and peace with them. And he has put love and gentle kindness between you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. {30:21}
Additionally, from the Prophet’s guidance:
The best of you in faith is the one who is best towards his wife, and I am the best of you towards my wives. [Tirmithi, Ibn Majah]
This hadith represents one of several which clearly demonstrate that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh commanded his Companions to treat their wives well, in accordance with the Quranic injunctions of living with them in love and gentle kindness, and not to beat them. How can a man be a good husband and treat his wife well, and yet beat her? In fact, this very idea was conveyed in another hadith of the Prophet wherein he said,
Could any one of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then be intimate with her in the evening? [Bukhari and Muslim]
Furthermore, the great 1st century scholar of Makkah, `Ataa' ibn Abi Rabah, said, "I asked (the famed Companion and respected commentator on the Quran) Ibn `Abbas: ‘What is the hitting that is not in a harsh manner (ghayr mubarrih*)?’ He replied, ‘With the siwak (early form of toothbrush, about the size and width of a pencil) and the like.’” (Tafsir Tabari)
* The Prophet is reported to have said, “Fear God with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from God and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of God. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your house; if they do that, then you may hit them, but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” [Muslim]
Another well-known commentator on the Quran, Al-Razi, mentions in his commentary that such beating, as a rule, must: (a) be a light beating, and (b) the face must be avoided. He added that the jurists said “a whip or a stick” was absolutely prohibited and could not be used to strike a woman, but that instead something like a handkerchief or a finger would be allowed, again underlying the principle that injury and pain are not the objectives, and are, in fact, strictly forbidden.
From these Quranic passages, statements of the Prophet and early commentaries, Muslim legal experts derive the Islamically agreed upon understanding that the basic rule (asl) in regards to beating is strict prohibition, followed by restricted permission (rukhsa) as a symbolic gesture as explicitly stated by the Prophet in the hadith below:
The Prophet said, “Do not hit the female servants of God!” Then `Umar came to the Prophet and said, “The women are rebelling against their husbands!” So the Prophet gave a restricted permission to strike them lightly (as a symbolic gesture and not to harm). Whereupon women started pouring in to see the family of the Messenger of God in order to complain about their husbands (who had abused this license and gone too far). Seeing this, the Prophet said with great displeasure, “Many women have poured in to see the family of Muhammad, complaining of their husbands, and the latter are certainly not the best of you.” [Abu Dawud, al-Nasaa'i, Ibn Majah]
Moreover, if such a symbolic gesture leaves bruises, the husband is to be penalized in Islamic court according to Islamic law (not a slap on the wrist). Also, Islamic jurists are united in their view that wife-beating is a valid reason for a wife to get divorced from her husband even if he wants to keep her. The following quote is an example of one present-day Muslim judge’s ruling in regards to a woman whose husband was, in her own words, “verbally and emotionally abusive … physically abusive to a small degree … has pushed me lightly and smacked me lightly”:
Based on what has been mentioned in your case, it is permissible for you to ask for a divorce (khula’), because living with this man and anyone like him is something that is unbearable. Perhaps God will compensate you with someone better than this man. If you cannot find another husband, then staying without a husband in your parents’ house, where you will be cared for and respected, will be better for you than staying with this man, so long as you do not fear that you will be tempted … As answered by Dr. Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid, retrieved from: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/13803/her-husband-beats-her-severely
Thus, although domestic violence is a reality in Muslim society, just as it is a reality in all non-Muslim societies today, as well as in the past, it is no less tolerated or overlooked than other crimes in Islam. Muslim women are entitled to security and peace, and Islamic law continues to be committed to abolishing this distorted and evil practice.
Lastly, it is important to realize that the symbolic gesture referred to in the verse is actually the last of three courses of action that can be taken, actions which must be taken in that chronological order when dealing with problems in the marriage.
In conclusion, the common misconception that Islam condones or recommends wife-beating is baseless and far from the truth.
In reality, it is only allowed in a symbolic sense. Causing injury, harm or pain to the woman is strictly forbidden and punishable by law. The greatest guidepost on the matter is that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as our role model, never once raised a hand to his wives and he commanded his followers not to beat their wives. Consequently, domestic violence in Islam is grounds for a woman seeking a divorce. Whatever may occur in Muslim communities of domestic violence then is sinful and culturally based, wherein religion is only used as a weak and unjustifiable excuse. It is important that Muslims be educated about this crime so as to avoid the sin associated with it and so that Muslim women may live in the tranquility and security which God aims for them to enjoy.
The Judeo-Christian approach to this issue though is distinctly different from that of Islam. The Judeo-Christian religious history reveals a tolerance, even encouragement, of physical beatings in order to keep women in line, and laws to that effect have only been abolished from their respective legal codes in the past few centuries.
Beginning with Jewish religious writings, the renowned Rabbi Maimonides from the 12th century, in his Mishnah Torah,recommended beating a disobedient wife as a suitable form of discipline:
A wife who refuses to perform any kind of work that she is obligated to do, may be compelled to perform it, even by scourging her with a rod (sometimes whip). [Ishut 21:10] Peskowitz, M. Levitt, L. (1996). Judaism Since Gender. Abingdon: Routledge Company
Later, 16th century Jewish writings seem to recognize that wife beating is wrong, yet they simultaneously circumvent relieving the woman from an abusive marriage. These evasive opinions are part of Jewish religious law (halakha) and are grounded in the husband's dominant place in marriage. Hence, domestic abuse is not automatic grounds for Jewish divorce. So, although in modern times there are almost no rabbinic authorities remaining who justify wife-beating for the purpose of education or due to negligence of household duties, there are many who still do not allow a forced divorce to free the victim of wife-beating .… Graetz, N. (n.d.). Domestic Violence in Jewish Law. How Judaism views wife-beating. Retrieved from: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/domestic-violence-in-jewish-law/
In Christianity, wife beating was specifically allowed by canon law (Power 35), and also maintained in civil law as well, which authorized the right of “reasonable chastisement”. In Beirne Stedman’s 1917 article summarizing the rights of a husband to beat his wife, he reports the following about the United States:
The right of a husband to chastise his wife has been recognized in [the United States of America]. Chancellor Kent laid down the rule that the husband may put "gentle restraints upon her liberty, if her conduct is such as to require it." For the old doctrine that a man had a right to thrash his wife whenever he pleased, provided he did not "use a switch larger than his thumb," or did not "do serious bodily harm or inflict permanent injury," three reasons were given: (1) It is the "husband's duty to make his wife behave herself" and thrash her if necessary to that end. (2) "To draw a veil over dealings between man and wife," the idea being that a little wholesome chastising, to "make her behave herself," privately administered, would make less noise and scandal than the publicity of a court trial. (3) That there was a long line of decisions giving the husband privilege and immunity to inflict chastisement. Stedman, B. (Aug, 1917). Right of Husband to Chastise Wife. The Virginia Law Register New Series. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 241-248
Another review article also documented the persistence of legalized wife beating, or “correction,” by stating:
Until the late nineteenth century, Anglo-American common law structured marriage to give a husband superiority over his wife in most aspects of the relationship. By law, a husband acquired rights to his wife's person, the value of her paid and unpaid labor, and most property she brought into the marriage.
A wife was obliged to obey and serve her husband, and the husband was subject to a reciprocal duty to support his wife and represent her within the legal system. According to the doctrine of marital unity, a wife's legal identity "merged" into her husband's, so that she was unable to file suit without his participation, whether to enforce contracts or to seek damages in tort. The husband was in turn responsible for his wife's conduct-liable, under certain circumstances, for her contracts, torts, and even some crimes.
As master of the household, a husband could command his wife's obedience, and subject her to corporal punishment or "chastisement" if she defied his authority. In his treatise on the English common law, Blackstone explained that a husband could "give his wife moderate correction," …. Siegel, Reva B. (1996). The Rule of Love: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1092. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1092
Referring to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [The Commentaries on the Laws of England are an influential 18th century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769. The Commentaries were long regarded as the leading work on the development of English law and played a role in the development of the American legal system. They were, in fact, the first methodical treatise on the common law suitable for a lay readership since at least the Middle Ages.], we read:
BUT, though our law in general considers man and wife as one person, yet there are some instances in which she is separately considered; as inferior to him, and acting by his compulsion ….
THE husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds; and the husband was prohibited to use any violence to his wife, [other than lawfully and reasonably pertains to the husband for the rule and correction of his wife]. The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanors, [To beat his wife severely with whips and sticks], for others, only [with moderate punishment]. But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife. Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior. Blackstone, William, 1723-1780. (1962). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Boston: Beacon Press
D. Dieterich also comments on how wife-beating was greatly tolerated by the Christian religious establishment in 16th century Europe:
While Ozment notes that “wife-beating … certainly knew no religious confession,” he implies that Protestants took a more severe view of such abuse than Catholics. This view is shared by John Witte in his study, From Sacrament to Contract. He credits the Genevan marriage ordinances with a number of "innovations, or novel emphases" including "the stern prohibition against wife abuse." In practice, however, even in Geneva this prohibition did not change legal practice in the treatment of abusive marriages; in the marriage ordinances "separation from bed and board was not an option, save in the most dire cases of danger to an innocent spouse’s body and soul." This does not mark much of a change from medieval practice. Nor does it contrast much with Catholic jurisdictions, as Joel Harrington notes in his more balanced study of Catholic and Protestant states in the region of the Rhenish Palatinate. His evidence suggests that in practice the remedies of domestic abuse were similar, and supports O’Day’s contention that a certain level of violence was considered normal. Citing cases from different jurisdictions, he summarizes the problem of abuse as follows:
Significantly, few authorities, Protestant or Catholic, ever considered physical abuse in itself—except in life-threatening situations—as worthy of serious punishment. . . . Relying almost exclusively on warnings and threats of excommunication to achieve their end, ecclesiastical officials surely found the possibilities for significant behavior modification extremely limited, to say the least (Joel F. Harrington, Reordering Marriage and Society in Reformation Germany, p. 266) Dieterich, D.H. (Oct, 1998). Church, Property, and Wife-Beating in Sixteenth-Century Liège: The Case of Catherine Woet de Trixhe. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, Toronto, Ontario, 1998. Retrieved from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hdiet/frames6.htm
Thus, Judeo-Christian historical attitudes towards wife-beating, some continuing till this day, espoused a physical correction of behavior similar to that used against slaves. These beatings were also often unrestricted as regards to cause, hence allowing men, particularly in medieval Judaism, to beat their wives even for not performing household chores. When brought before the courts or clergy, these acts were often tolerated to a great degree, and even justified, leaving the woman to suffer without even the recourse of divorce as is the case with many Jewish Agunah (Women unable to obtain divorce certificates from their abusive husbands) today. Fortunately, many of these practices have been abolished in later religious writings, although statistically domestic violence is still a significant problem in the world today, Judeo-Christian societies included.
