Quran 4:34 has been used by some Muslim husbands to excuse violence against their wives, and also as evidence of permission for domestic violence by some critics of Islam. But there are also verses in the Quran about the equality of human beings (Q. 30:21) and on kindness (mawaddah) and mercy (raḥmah) as the basis of marital life (Q. 49:13), and the mutual rights of couples (Q. 2:228). Some state that the only way to solve such paradoxes and to find the “correct” exegesis of Q. 4:34 is by referring to Islamic tradition.
In this thought-provoking book, Ayeshah Chaudhry explores the exegetical and legal heritage of Sunni Islam on Q. 4:34, and presents the traditional and modern understandings of the verse in a brilliant scholarly analysis. The first three chapters describe the textual, historical and cosmological context of Q. 4:34. Chaudhry demonstrates that the verse has the potential for various interpretations. Using different translations (of 4:32–5), she records different meanings for every word. In her survey of the historical context, Chaudhry discusses two main occasions of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) in their different versions. She speaks of the “idealized cosmology” of exegetes, which is “an ideal divinely ordered universe” in exegetes' minds, describing the world as it should be, rather than how it is (p. 40). In traditional idealized cosmology the relationship of man to woman is similar to that of God to man. This startling claim is justified convincingly by discussing traditional exegeses of Q. 4:34, mentioning the exegetes' ideas on the superior nature of man, and quoting ḥadīths on the rights of husbands and duties of wives. In this cosmology, man's inherent superiority makes “husbands responsible to God for the financial, moral and social well-being of their wives. Wives … were responsible to God through their obedience to their husbands. Disobedient wives challenged God's ordering of the world, and husbands were authorized to discipline them” (p. 53).
The second chapter, which makes painful but very instructive reading, addresses different exegeses of the term nushūz and the injunctions following it “ʿiḍuhunna wa-hjuruhunna fi al-maḍājiʿ wa-ḍribuhunna”. Uhjuruhunna, for instance, in traditional exegeses is interpreted as one of the following; “leaving the sexual relationship”, “leaving the bed”, “avoiding the woman in every aspect'', “having sex with one's wife and avoiding her in other aspects”, “using ugly obscene and vile speech”, or “tethering the wife and tying her in the bed”. Traditional exegetes invariably understood wa-ḍribuhunna as granting husbands the right to discipline wives physically; however, they disagreed about the procedure of permissible hitting and its extent, permissible instruments of hitting, the location on a woman's body which can be hit, and the possibility of prosecuting a husband in the case of excessive beating or killing a woman while disciplining her. The variety of permissible discipline included two or three lashes, up to 40 lashes (p. 84), 39, 75 or 79 lashes (p. 106), and up to 100 lashes (p. 107). The permissible tools for hitting one's wife were a toothbrush, shoelace, handkerchief, hand, whip, stick and sandal (pp. 83–4).
The third chapter focuses on jurisprudential texts of the four main Sunnī sects prior to the twentieth century, about the disciplining of wives. All these fuqahaʾ give the husband the right to strike his wife, but they differ in the type of beatings. The Ḥanafīs, for instance, offered husbands maximum freedom in physically disciplining wives; The Mālikīs introduced judicial and extra-judicial oversights into marriage which limits husbands in excessive beating; Shāfiʿīs expanded the definition of wifely nushūz; and Ḥanbalīs did not regard a husband as liable in the case of excessive beating, even if the wife were to die.
The second half of the book very beautifully addresses contemporary understandings of Q. 4:34. Chaudhry presents the change in interpretation of Q. 4:34 during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The cause of such transformation is the “re-fashioned idealized cosmology” in which “men no longer mediate women's relationship with God; rather, men and women possess equal human worth” (p. 135). In this time, hermeneutic negotiation becomes necessary as the lexical meaning of the verse clashes with the expectations of believers. The author carefully classifies the contemporary efforts to solve the contradiction between current thought and Islamic tradition before the twentieth century into four main approaches; the traditionalists, neo-traditionalists, progressives and reformists.
The traditionalist and neo-traditionalist approaches privilege patriarchal cosmology and thus maintain the right of husbands to discipline their wives physically, but frame their argument in a modern way. They state that in marriage both spouses are valuable, but men and women are different and complement each other, rather than being equal, and men are still superior. Progressive and reformist scholars privilege egalitarian cosmology and do not allow husbands to discipline their wives in any circumstance. Iḍribuhunna in the latter two approaches is interpreted variously as “have sex with them”, “turn away from them” (p. 182), “travel”, “walk away” or “leave them” (p. 189), “cite them” to an authority (p. 190) and “compel a separation” (p. 192). The author does not limit the resources of this chapter to exegetical works, but refers to lectures, official fatwas, and websites of contemporary Islamic scholars.
Chapter 5 describes how past and present scholars – deliberately or unintentionally – have chosen different Quranic verses and prophetic ḥadīths to support their exegetical understanding of Q. 4:34. The difference is explained by their views of idealized cosmology.
Like many scholars in Islamic studies, Chaudhry deems it sufficient to refer only to Sunni scholars when she speaks of Islam. However, her book is a unique opportunity for students to read an analytical and historical work on Sunnī Islamic views on the interpretation of Q. 4:34. It also creates, as she claims, authoritative space for contemporary Muslim scholars “to advocate for innovative hermeneutical strategies that are responsive to the needs of contemporary Muslim Communities” (p. 223). Polysemy of the Quran is not seen as a threat in this book, but as an opportunity to harmonize present human expectations with the eternal text of the Quran.
