Chastising Women: A means
to resolve marital problems
Abdul Hamid A. Abu Sulayman
As we approach the issue of women “chastisement” and the injury, pain and
disgrace which it entails, we need to bear in mind that suffering, fear and
anxiety result in hate, isolation and apathy. Meanwhile, love, deference and
trust result in charity, dedication and enthusiasm. For long time, the Ummah
has been enduring severe infliction of suppression and humiliation, and a
culture of despotism and patronage. In so many societies, such tyrannical
practice is no longer a monopoly of the state police or security apparatus.
In fact, these abuses have become part and parcel of the common culture, and
they occur amongst different categories of the society, in particular,
between the “strong” and the “weak.” The implications of this situation are
significant since it is contrary to the Islamic spirit of brotherhood and
solidarity which depicts the Muslims, as in the Sunnah
traditions, as a “one
structure whose parts prop up each other,” and sets “the example of believers
in their mutual sympathy and compassion as a one body that collectively cares
for any ailing organ until it recovers.” The Sunnah
also provides the
foundations of such spirit: “each Muslim is a brother of his fellow Muslim
and should not oppress, disdain or abandon him; it is enough of evil for a
Muslim to demean his brother (in faith); a Muslim is all sanctuary, his life,
property and character;” “God does not bestow merci on some one who does not
have merci for others;” and “God but bestows merci on his merciful
servants;” “a believer can never be a slanderer, an imprecator, an obscene or
a vulgar;” “the most faithful amongst the believers are the ones with the
best morals and the best of you are also the best for their families.” The
Sunnah traditions report that a man who flapped his
servant slave was
compelled to free that slave. In another occasion, the Messenger (s)
furiously rebuked a husband who beat his wife: “an individual of you
continues to flap his wife as a slave and is not ashamed to keep cuddling
her;” “so many women who come by Muhammad’s family bemoan (the abuse of)
their husbands, and those are not the best of you.”
The Prophet himself set
the highest example of kindness, compassion, grace, and benevolence. “He has
never extended his hand to strike a woman, or a servant or anything else save
if he is to struggle in the cause of God.”
In light of the above general premises, we should examine the issue
of “chastisement” and its place in the familial, marital and paternal
relations, so as to identify the real notion of such “chastisement,” and what
is the bona fide Islamic familial organization which sustains the structure
of the Muslim family, in general, and with regard to the modern era, in
particular. Such arrangement needs to realize the relations of “repose,
affection and compassion,” so as to render a strong and solid family which
makes a safe, spiritual, emotional and psychological hotbed for the Muslim
child to grow up strong, honest, competent, and responsive vis-à-vis the
challenges of the present era.
The issue of “chastisement” strongly arises a propos the structures
of the family and human relations and receives exceptional interests because
it is referred to in a Qur’anic text and because its
historical and
traditional interpretations were purported by most people to denote slap,
flap, flog, beat, strike, punch, etc. This would definitely involves a strong
sense of pain and humiliation regardless of the extent of the physical
suffering itself which may vary, according to some fatawa,
around few strokes
with a siwak (tooth cleansing) stick or the like,
i.e., a “tooth brush” or
a “pencil,” as rendered by Abdullah b. ‘Abbas in
responding to an inquiry
regarding the construal of the “mild chastisement,” according to a narrative
related by Ata’. Thus, this “chastisement” is more like a reproach or an
expression of discontent and annoyance rather than an expression of
humiliation and pain. On the other hand, we find some fatawa
regulate “chastisement” so that it must not exceed forty strokes, and “no
retribution between man and his wife (in regard to chastisement) except for
wounds and murder.
The Qur’anic text that refers to the “chastisement”
issue is (
35) and proceeds as follows:
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, due to what God has given
the one more (strength) than the other, and due to the sustenance they
provide from their own means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly
obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them
guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disobedience and
recalcitrance, (first admonish them ,
(next refuse to share their beds,
and (last “chastise” them (lightly); but if they return to obedience,
seek
not against them any means of annoyance: for God is Most High, Great (above
you all). If you fear a rift between them twain, appoint two arbiters: one
from his family and another from hers; if they wish for peace, God will bring
about their reconciliation: for God has full knowledge, and is (utterly)
acquainted with all things.”
In order to correctly comprehend this text, it is necessary to place
it in the general framework of the family structure and relations in Islam,
so as to grasp its true implications within the objectives and purposes of
the revelation. The above text must be construed in light of other related
texts, such as:
“O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you from a single
person, created (of a similar nature) his mate, and from them twain scattered
countless men and women; reverence God through Whom
you demand (your mutual
rights), and reverence the wombs (that bore and delivered you): for God Ever
watches over you.” (4:1)
“And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves,
that you may dwell in repose with them, and He has rendered affection and
compassion between your (hearts): verily in that are signs for those who
ponder.” (30: 21)
“When you divorce women, and they fulfill the term of their (’Iddah), either
take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; but do
not take them back to injure them, (and/or) to take undue advantage; if any
one does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not take God’s signs as a mockery,
but solemnly celebrate God’s bounties on you, and that he sent down to you
the Book (of revelation) and Wisdom (of the Messenger) for your instruction,
and fear God, and know that God is all knowledgeable and (utterly) acquainted
with all things.” (2:231)
“O you who attain to faith! When you marry believing women, and then
divorce
them before you have touched them (in a due intercourse), they owe you
no ‘Iddah that you have to count in respect of them;
so give them a present,
and set them free in a graceful manner.” (33: 49)
“The divorce is (only permissible) twice, (after that the parties) should
either hold together on equitable terms or separate with grace. It is
unlawful for you (men) to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), save
when both parties fear that they would be unable to maintain the limits
ordained by God (e.g., to treat each other fairly). If you (judges) do
indeed fear that they would be unable to maintain the limits ordained by God,
there is no blame on either of them if she gives up something in return for
her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God; so do not breach them. If
any do breach the limits ordained by God, such persons wrong (themselves as
well as others).” (2:229)
If we read the above verses in the light of the collective injunctions of
Shari’ah and the overall Prophetic ideals and
traditions, as-Sunnah, we find
that the real spirit of the matrimonial relations is shaped by the sentiments
of “affection” and “compassion” and the obligations of “patronage”, so that
the governing factors in such relations are “affection, compassion and
benevolence.”
Thus, we realize the motivation behind the inquiry for the real denotation
of “chastisement,” its implied consequences of humiliation and pain, and the
place of this issue in the concept of nuptial relations in Islam, especially,
with regard to the arrangements designated to promote acquaintance and love
amongst spouses and to solve their problems. This inquiry is highly
significant, considering the reality of social relations in the contemporary
Muslim society where women are exposed to practices of moral and physical
cruelty which attempt to find justifications in the misreading of certain
antiquated fatawa that grant the husband, as the head
of the family, an
expansive mandate in the family matters. Such perception of family relations
ignores the established foundations of this institution, i.e., compassion,
solidarity, cooperation and integration. The significance of such texts
should not be misperceived, taken out of context, or exploited so as women
and family are not deemed as a mere property of men.
The perspectives and experience the of past periods restricted the capacity
and role of women within their family spheres, burdened men with extra
obligations, and relegated extra powers to them in managing their family
matters, especially in the urban centers, because muscular capability was the
major means in earning sustenance and securing the family, whereas
housekeeping and family needs used to exhaust the women’s energy and time,
serving their houses, husbands and children. Such restrictions limit their
sophistication, reduce their interests, weaken their perception, isolate them
from the world beyond their family realms, and engulf them within a style of
undue naïveté. Although, the society then did not question the man’s
excessive authority in the family structure, the situation of today’s world
substantially differs in terms of means, capabilities and opportunities.
Today, the educational, technological, cultural, and global perspectives
offer women a better productivity, economic independence opportunity, and an
intellectual and technical capability that transcends the small sphere of
family matters of yesterday. Hitherto, the historical portrait of the
family, with its structural limitations of the past, seems unable to
exemplify the aspirations of the family members or to represent their roles
and potentials today. Therefore, we have to re-examine our perception of the
family structure within the context of today’s reality, so as to avoid
tensions and conflicts in the family relations and to re-establish the
concepts and values that enable each member of the family to pursue her/his
prospective role and to complement the roles of other members.
During the pursuit of this research, I was able to foresee an inherent
problem in the construal of the Arabic root verb daraba
(to chastise), in the
Qur’anic text, as to imply: “suffering,”
“humiliation” and physical “pain,”
as a means of interaction among adults, or to force the wife to acquiesce to
her husband’s will, or to coerce her into obedience and loyalty, regardless
of the extent of that pain and suffering. The underlying assumption of this
situation stipulates that the Muslim wife, as in certain religions and
cultures, has no way out of the wedlock no matter what and will never be able
to obtain a graceful release or an equitable divorce without the consent of
her husband. Accordingly, she ought to be subjugated or compelled to put up
with her husband’s acrimonious association and to comply with his diktats.
In this particular context, “chastisement” as “suffering,” “humiliation” and
physical “pain” seems to become an effective means to resolve, or rather, to
subdue marital problems!
However, we have definite and solid convictions that the above representation
does not subscribe to the principles of Shari’ah
which establish the family
structure on “affection” and “compassion,” support its solidarity and
cohesion, maintain its identity, and enshrine the lineage and background of
its members. Thus, the family membership in Islam is by choice; it does not
tolerate coercion, repression or abuse; and each spouse has the right to
depart the familial association and terminate the marital relationship,
especially, when it becomes adverse or hostile one. At least, separation is
less detrimental situation for all family members than a relationship of
hate, discord and acrimony. In these circumstances, Shari’ah
grants the
husband the right to seek talaq (divorce) and grants
the wife the right to
seek khul’ (discharge). In the latter case, the wife
has the choice to
extricate herself from the marital relationship by consensually returning
back the dowry that she received from her husband against the nuptials or
part of it (as a limit), so that the husband’s greed for her personal wealth
or her family wealth does not provide a motivation for abuse or result in the
break up of the family.6
Hence, compulsion or physical “chastisement” can never be a means which is
intended to maintain the spirit of affection among spouses, or to gain their
fidelity, or to promote intimacy and trust among them. Besides, studying the
arrangements rendered in the relevant Qur’anic verses
(4:34-35) which aim to
resolve marital problems and to seek reconciliation, especially, when the
wife shows a tendency for rebellion, disobedience or rejection of the nuptial
association, will reveal two routes of remedy.
Chastising Women: by AbdulHamid A.
AbuSulayman
(Part 3 of 4)
First is to resolve any marital dispute between spouses without the
intervention of or mediation from any third party. This route is to be
initiated and pursued by the husbands and should proceed through three steps:
(1) admonish them (the disobedient wives), (2) refuse to share their beds,
and (3) eventually “chastise”
them.
Second, when the above route fails to bring about peace and reconciliation,
both spouses should seek arbiters from their respective families in order to
help them handle their rift, to advise them and to prescribe remedies for
various problems, in accordance to verse (4:35):
“If you fear a rift between them twain, appoint two arbiters: one
from his
family and another from hers; if they wish for peace, God will bring about
their reconciliation: for God has full knowledge, and is (utterly) acquainted
with all things.”
All in all, the Qur’anic arrangements seek to effect reconciliation
and to
make peace between spouses based on the right psychological facts, through
positive initiatives, and in an effective manner. So, when the wife shows the
symptoms of disaffection and defiance, the Qur’an
ordains the husband to
counsel, plead to, and perhaps admonish her. This will give him an ample
opportunity to communicate his concerns, to clarify differences, to
articulate issues, to explore possible solutions, to demonstrate his keen
interest in maintaining their matrimony on equitable terms, and eventually to
open her eyes for the acrid potential consequences. Thus, in order to resolve
any marital discord that she might exacerbate by overrating her sexual appeal
or his affection or desire for her, the initial effort emphasizes dialogue,
exchange and advice so as to bring her back to reason and rationale. Yet,
if
she does not heed her husband’s counsel out
of ignorance or arrogance, it is
then deemed necessary for the husband to proceed farther in this route, i.e.,
to act more potently, rather than to merely counsel or admonish. At this
point, he should “refuse to share her bed,” which would
confirm that she
cannot count on his weakness, impatience or desire for her. Taking note
of
his lack of interest in her, she will realize by her intuitions the gravity
of the situation and the seriousness of the consequences. That would, in
turn, offer her a window of opportunity to abandon her tactics of “rejection”
and “antagonism,” to rethink the whole situation, to
realize that she has hit
a crossroads and to find a way out of the discord so as to re-establish the
state of “affection” and “compassion”
between both of them. On the other
hand, if the wife stubbornly maintains disobedience and rejection despite the
above attempts of remedy by the husband, there should be no doubt that this
marriage is in critical jeopardy, i.e., the threat to break up is looming in
the horizon of this family, and both parties should realize the that their
matrimonial association cannot indefinitely proceed in that direction.
At this critical point, the inevitable question is: what can be done to make
these spouses appreciate the real threats to their marriage and assess the
pernicious consequences, before the rift surpasses the private realm of their
nuptials, namely, before seeking mediation or arbitration of a third party,
such as the arbiters from their respective families?
Thus, the next step left in this route of remedy, within the family and
before seeking arbiters, is to “chastise,”
(Arabic root verb: daraba) in the
above cited verse (
connotation of the idiom daraba (to
“chastise”) is what concern this study
most, particularly, within the context of seeking reconciliation between
estranged spouses, after the husband attempted to restore peace and accord,
verbally by admonishing the wife and virtually by refusing to share her bed,
expressing his resentment. Is “chastisement” here construed
as: to slap, to
flap, to flog, to strike or any other related manner of corporal castigation
(or discipline) which inflicts suffering, pain and disgrace; seeks to subdue
women; and force them to maintain nuptial associations against their own
will? If this is true, what is the purpose of that subjugation?
Does the
subdual or subjugation of women with the means of
pain and disgrace help to
reinstate the sentiments of affection, compassion, affinity and fidelity; to
promote the motivation for chastity and sanctity; and to hedge the family
structure from falling down or falling apart? Is the physical pain or
humiliation an appropriate means to strengthen the tendency of women to
enshrine and cherish their families? Could this
“chastisement” subdue Muslim
women who are well versed in their rights and human dignity as manifested in
today’s world, coerce them to linger in the repression of an abusive
husband
or to condone such resentful association? Or are they entitled, in Islam,
to
an exit through graceful discharge (khul‘)?
And if it is so, can there be any
place for subdual or subjugation in the nuptial
associations, which is more
likely to undermine the family structure and to expedite its collapse?
As a result, if the idiom daraba (to “chastise”) does not denote the
infliction of physical injury or psychological pain, as this Qur’anic
idiom
might be misperceived by some husbands to justify their cruelty with their
wives who are, in turn, obliged to endure such abuses due to their insecurity
or economic insufficiency, how then should this “idiom” be
construed?
This matter should be examined in its entirety and with genuine insight of
its various dimensions and connotations without any rush to conclusions. The
Qur’anic arrangements that refer to the idiom daraba
is focused on how to
bring about reconciliation and peace between the spouses with the means that
would invoke affection, compassion and intimacy so as to bring back the
objective of marriage as an intimate “repose” for each
spouse. These
arrangements does not seek yet the last resort, the arbitration of
referees
from the spouse families. Therefore, if the Qur’anic context,
purpose and
arrangement does not afford any prospect for violence, injury or pain in
resolving problems of nuptial association, what is then the true construal of
this idiom which refers to some sort of
“chastisement”? Does it mean pain in
the allegorical or metaphorical sense, as it is attested in the revelation to
use daraba as a transitive verb (e.g., 16:75,
“God sets forth (another)
parable …”) or intransitive verb (e.g., 4:101
“When ye travel through the
earth …”), augmenting the verb with an auxiliary
preposition.
If we are to uphold the interpretation of this idiom as few strokes or pats
with a siwak (tooth cleansing stick) or the like,
such as a “tooth brush” or
a “pencil,” as rendered by Ibn
‘Abbas, then such construal does not involve
punishment, injury or pain. Rather, it connote a
corporeal expression of
gravity, frustration or disinterest in the wife by a husband who no longer
shares her bed. Such expression is the opposite of touching or cuddling
which implies geniality and intimacy. This construal is reasonable, graceful,
and fairly flawless since it does not entail any damage to the human dignity
and due respect between spouses who are virtually bound by ties of nuptial
association. The above perception does not associate “chastisement” with
disgrace, injury or pain. In contrast, the view of some jurists, as
characterized in their fatawa, does not necessarily
follow that line of
thinking; especially, when they stipulate that
“chastisement” should “not
exceed twenty or forty strokes,” regardless of the extent and details
of
these strokes, i.e., “whether they scatter on different parts of her
body or
not, injure organs or not, cause a bone fracture or not, and whether
she’ll
survive them or not!”7
In spite of the mitigated interpretation of Ibn
‘Abbas, it still offers a gap
of misperception which was manipulated, in the past, to justify abusive
conduct and can be exploited time and again, at the present and in the
future, to perpetuate the infliction of injury and pain on women, under the
auspices of the fatawa of strokes. Therefore, both
the perception and
resolution should leave no chance of misreading of the real concept
of “chastisement” and should allow
no misconduct or abuse of that concept.
Such precautions, by all means, fit the bona fide purposes of
establishing the family on affection, compassion and dignity.
As a result, I committed myself to rethink the whole matter in terms of its
methodological framework which I have presented earlier in this study as to
the eternity of the revelation and the message, the necessity to grasp the
relevant Divine norms, the peculiarity of time and place, and the imperative
of an objective and disciplined analysis of the matter under
consideration.
Hence, I have endeavored to examine the different connotations of the idiom
daraba and its various derivatives in the
Qur’anic text, since it is a sound
approach to construe al-Qur’an with al-Qur’an. The best
exegesis of the
glorious script shall be rendered by the revelation itself and fine-tuned by
the general principles and purposes of
The compilation of the various connotations of the idiom daraba
and its
derivatives in the Qur’an divulges, approximately, seventeen distinct
nuances
or representations, as afforded by the following verses:
“And God sets forth (another) parable …” (16:76,
112; 66:11)
“When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, your
people
raise a clamor thereat (in ridicule)!” (43:57)
“See what similes they strike for thee: but they have gone astray;
and never
can they find a way.” (17:48)
“Invent not similitudes for God: for
God knows, and you know not” (16:74)
“When ye travel through the earth …” (4:101)
“Then we draw (a veil) over their ears, for a number of years in the
Cave,
(So that they heard not).” (18:11)
“Shall We then take away the revelation from you and repel (you), for
that ye
are a people transgressing beyond bounds?” (43:5)
“…they should draw their veils over their bosoms
… and that they should not
strike their feet so as to draw attention to their hidden ornaments
…” (24:31)
“… Travel by night with My servants, and strike a dry
(solid) path for them
…” (20:77)
“Then We told Moses: Strike the sea with your rod. So it divided, and
each
separate part became like the huge firm mass of a mountain” (26:64)
“God disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as
highest
…” (2:26)
“And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: Strike
the rock
with your staff. Then gushed forth therefrom
twelve springs ...” (2:60)
“… They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew
on themselves the
wrath of God …” (2:61)
“Disgrace is pitched over them (like a tent) …”
(3:112)
“But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and
smite
their faces and their backs?” (47:27)
“… I will instill terror into the hearts of the
unbelievers: Smite ye above
their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them” (8:12)
“And take in your hand a raceme (bunch)8 of soft leaves and stroke
therewith:
and break not your oath …” (38:44)
“Therefore, when ye encounter the unbelievers (in hostility), Smite
their
necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on
them …” (47:4)
“O ye who attain to faith! When you go abroad in the cause of God,
investigate carefully …” (4:94)
“… So a wall shall be erected between them, with a gate
therein. Within it
will be mercy throughout, and without it, all alongside, will be (wrath and)
punishment!” (57:13)
“Then did he turn upon them (idols), striking them with the right
hand.”
(37:93:)
Should we examine the above citations, we will
note that the root
verb (idiom) daraba (transitive and intransitive)
takes several figurative or
allegorical connotations which signify to isolate, to separate, to depart, to
distance, to exclude, to move away, etc. When a thing is subjected to
such
case, that means it is to be extracted, distinguished and set
forth as an
evident example. The idiom daraba in the land
denotes to travel or to depart.
With respect to the ear, the verb daraba means to
block or to prevent
hearing. And in regard to the revelation, daraba
means to stop, to halt, to
abandon and to take away. Obviously, for the truth and false, daraba means
to make both of them evident and to distinguish them from each other;
whereas, for veils, daraba connotes to draw them over
and to cover the bosom.
In the seas or rivers, daraba is to strike a path
through the water and set
the water aside. But for humiliation and shame, daraba
is to signify that
both of them are pitched over people; however, for a wall, daraba
means to be
erected, that is, to indicate partition or separation. In regard to the
finger tips, necks, faces and backs, it means to cut, to slash and to strike;
whereas, for the rest of citations, it means to impel, to shock, to slap, or
to damage so as to precipitate the desired impact which is relevant to each
respective situation, action or interaction.
Thus, the general connotations of the root verb daraba in the
Qur’anic parlance signify to separate, to distance, to depart, to
abandon,
and so forth.9 What should then be the appropriate construal of this
idiom
when it is presented in the context of resolving marital problems and
restoring love and harmony between estranged spouses? The reference here is
to (
“… As to those women on whose part
you fear disobedience and recalcitrance,
(first:) admonish them , (next:) refuse to share their beds, and (last:)
chastise (daraba) them; but if they return to
obedience, seek not against
them means of annoyance: for God is Most High, Great (above you
all).”
Chastising Women: by AbdulHamid A.
AbuSulayman
(Final part )
Considering the above context and situation, the purpose of reconciliation,
the Islamic doctrine of human sanctity and dignity, the right of self
determination in Islam, the consensual nature of the nuptial association, and
the ability of nuptial partners to gracefully dissolve such association
without coercion or intimidation, the denotation of daraba
in this citation
cannot imply the infliction of injury, pain or disgrace. The most candid
construal is to imply separation, departure, partition or seclusion, however.
This type of arrangement, where the estranged husband altogether desert his
wife for some time, would help to streamline the acrid relationship because
it is a step that goes farther than admonishing her and refusing to share her
bed. Now, as the husband is away, the wife has an ample opportunity to
rethink the whole situation, to ponder the eventual consequences, and to
realize the inevitable conclusion of disobedience and rejection, namely,
divorce. At this point, she will have a full chance to re-examine her
intent
and conduct and to decide whether she wants this threshold of separation to
be a lasting state! It is the moment of truth and she has the choice to
go
on with her stubborn ignorance or to restore rationality and bring back her
estranged husband before it is too late.
Therefore, to "chastise a woman in her
home, in the context of
streamlining a difficult marital relationship and bringing the spouses back
to harmony and responsibility, should be construed as to "leave" the
nuptial
nest, to "move away", or to "separate" from her as a
further step that aims
to send an unequivocal message to the wife regarding the consequences of
disobedience which she should take note of. This is the last resort, if
there still is a place for compassion and affection, before seeking the
mediation of arbiters from their respective families. If this attempt, in
turn, does not manage to seal this rupture and to restore peace, then both
parties should face the eventual choice of "… (the
parties) should either
hold together on equitable terms or separate with grace." (2:229)
The above perception of the idiom daraba (to "chastise") is
consistent and attuned with the actual Prophetic tradition and practice as
attested in the narrative which relates that the Prophet (s) moved away from
his wives when they rebelled after their demands of better living were
denied. The Prophet (s) resorted to al-mashrabah for
a month and offered them
the choice to obey him, to accept his manner of living and to hold together
accordingly or to release them from the wedlock and to separate gracefully.
This incident is addressed in al-Qur’an (33:28-29):
"O Prophet! declare to your consorts: if it be
that you desire the worldly
life and its gleam, then come! I will provide for your delight and set you
free in a handsome manner. But if you seek God and His Messenger, and the
abode of the hereafter, verily God has set up for the well-doers amongst you
a great reward."
Throughout this experience, the Prophet (s) had
never inflicted any
injury, pain or insult on anyone of them. Should there be a divine
ordinance
of corporal or psychological discipline as a potent panacea, the Prophet (s)
shall be the first one to mind and to proceed with such cure. Hence, when the
consorts of the Prophet realized the gravity of the matters, sensed the wrath
of their own families, and missed the prophetic association and intimacy;
together, all that was enough to bring them back to rationale, to return them
to the grace of obedience, and to become content with the Prophet's lifestyle
as he favored.10
So, when his consorts rebelled and disobey him,
the messenger (s)
moved away from their residences and secluded himself for a month so as to
help them realize the consequences of their rebellion and disobedience,
without inflicting any physical injury or psychological pain. It took him
(s) one month of seclusion before advising their families about the matter
and before offering them to choose between compliance and separation. Only
then, they recognized their wrong standing, experienced a threshold of the
potential consequences, and returned to the grace of obedience. As a
result,
the construal of daraba (to "chastise") in
the actual practice of the Prophet
(s) is to seclude, to move away and to distance himself from them. That is
consistent, on one hand, with the psychological nature of the matter; on the
other hand, with the common intuition of various Qur'anic
usages of the root
verb daraba (to "chastise") and its
abstractions, derivatives and
figuratives. Also, this perception does not
contradict with the exegesis of
Ibn 'Abbas (r) as he cautions
husbands that their expression of resentment
should not exceed few strokes with a siwak (tooth
cleansing) stick, or the
like. Evidently, this genre of "chastisement" could be adequate
to express
the husband’s discontent and anger. Yet, it is not evident how could few
strokes, in this latter stage of a nuptial discord, be sufficient to convey
the true gravity of the stand off and its consequences, or even to go further
toward a more decisive step than refusing to share the wife's bed, in order
to reach reconciliation or to seek separation!
In conclusion, within the Qur'anic
arrangement to remedy the marital
relationship after the eruption of disobedience and conflict, I have found
out that the true reading of the Qur'anic idiom daraba (to "chastise")
directs the husband to "move away" from the wife, to
"distance" himself from
her and to "depart" the nuptial residence as a last attempt to bring
her back
to rationale and to help her realize the gravity of recalcitrance and its
potential consequences for her and her children. The connotations of
departure and seclusion is more readily and more compatible with the Qur'anic
parlance than the associations of physical injury, psychological pain and
disgrace. The latter ones do not result in a graceful nuptial relationship,
do not promote the human dignity and do not provide "affection"
and "compassion" which are the foundations of a lasting matrimony;
especially, in the light of the values, prospects and outlooks of the present
era. This insight, as I have furnished above, is well informed by the actual
practice of the Prophet (s) as an effective emotional remedy to accomplish
the purposes and objectives of Islam in establishing the family structure on
affection, compassion, chastity and confidence, in order to maintain the
family as the trustful hotbed which nurtures the youngsters spiritually,
morally, emotionally and intellectually to the best levels, so that they can
accomplish success and carry out the message of the revelation.
I invoke God Almighty to bestow righteousness
and guidance to the
best of probity and benevolence; and our ultimate avowal is that all praise
and gratitude be to God, The Lord of the Worlds.
Notes
1. The author, Dr. AbdulHamid A. AbuSulayman is the President of the
International Institute of Islamic Thought (I.I.I.T.) at
the Chairman of the Child Development Foundation,
rector of the International Islamic University of Malaysia. The English
version of the original Arabic text was rendered by Dr. Mazen
A. Al-Najjar.
2. AbuSulayman, AbdulHamid
A., "Zahiriyyat Ibn Hazm wa I'jazz
ar-Risalah al-
Muhammadiyyah," in Arabic, (The Prima Facie Textualism of Ibn Hazm and the
Inimitability of the Muhammadan Message), at-Tajdeed, a quarterly research
journal published by the International Islamic University, Malaysia, Vol. 2,
No. 3 (February, 1998).
3. See, e.g., AbuSulayman, AbdulHamid
A., Toward an Islamic Theory of
International Relations: New Directions for Methodology and Thought,
(Herndon, V.A.: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2nd Revised
Edition, 1993).
4. For the interpretation of "O Messenger!
Incite the believers to the
fight. If there are twenty amongst you patient and steadfast, they will
vanquish two hundred; if a hundred (believers), they will vanquish a thousand
of the disbelievers: for these are a people without (truthful)
perception,"
see: AbuSulayman, AbdulHamid
A., Toward an Islamic Theory of International
Relations: New Directions for Methodology and Thought, Ibid, 69-75.
5. For the interpretation of "… and chastise them; but if they
return to
obedience, seek not against them any means of annoyance" (4:34), see: at-
Tabarri, Abu-Ja'afer
Muhammad Ibn Jarir
(d. 310 A.H.), Jami' al-Bayan
fi
Tafseer al-Qur'an, (The
Exegesis of Qur'an by at-Tabarri),
(Beirut: Dar
Lubnan), 4, no. 5, 40-44; al-Qummi
an-Nisabouri, Muhammad Ibn Hussayn,
Tafseer Ghara'ib al-Qur'an wa Raghai'b
al-Furqan, (The Exegesis of the
Qur'anic Prodigies and Oddities), provided in the
footnotes of at-Tabarri's.
6. Noteworthy, the verse of Khul' (discharge),
"… there is no blame on
either of them if she gives up something in return for her freedom ..."
(2:229), does not specify the value of such redemption grant. However, the
Prophetic traditions impose a limit, in order that it doesn't exceed the
value of the dowry she has received from her husband against the
marriage: "would you return his garden back to him (her husband)?…," but
nothing more. For that allowing any additional value may motivate a greedy
husband, for his wife's wealth, to mistreat her so as to impel her into
seeking extrication from his labyrinth of misery in return for her or her
family's wealth. Such a loophole could cause the family to fall down or
fall
apart; therefore, it has to be closed up, indefinitely.
7. at-Tabarri; an-Nisabouri,
Ibid, 4, no. 5, 40-44.
8. In fact, the literal Qur'anic expression is dighth which is construed as
a raceme of numerous soft palm leaves. Precisely, God (Almighty) who bestows
grace and sanctity upon the mankind, instructs his Prophet Ayyoub
(s), whose
wife annoyed him while he was enduring a prolonged and severe ailment and
adversity, to make good of his oath to chastise her with a hundred strokes by
touching her with a raceme of a hundred palm leaves, as a figurative
manifestation of his vow, without inflicting any
injury, pain or disgrace on
her. This evokes another attested parable of the young and subservient
believer Isma'il (s), the son of the acquiescent
believer Ibrahim (s) who
confirmed and validated the vision (of revelation), but God redeemed Isma'il
with a "great sacrifice".
9. It is remarkable that the Qur'anic text does
not provide the idiom daraba
to denote the physical or corporal punishment; rather, it uses the idiom
jalada (to lash, to whip, to flog, etc.), as in the
verse (24:2) which
reads: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each
of
them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case, in a
matter prescribed by God, if you believe in God and the last day; and let a
party of the believers witness their punishment."
10. For the complete details of this incident in as-Sunnah, see, for
instance: Sahih al-Bukhari,
no. 5395; Sahih Muslim, no. 2704; Sunann
at-
Tarmidhi, no. 3240; Musnadd
al-Imam Ahmad, no. 24588.
Home - Quran & Hadith – Charity - Family & Health – Islam – Miscellaneous – Matrimonials – Human
Rights - Women – Newscenter – Boycott – Chechnya – Palestine – Links