5.6.3. {adribu}

The verse continues :
"... admonish her, leave her alone in the sleeping places and {adribu} her... “(Quran 4:34)

But, we need to ask ourselves, is the interpretation "beat" able to stand the test of the model, whereby verse 24:2 referred to earlier establishes the general rule of equal punishment for equal offences? There is, in fact, no single reason why there should be a deviation from this general rule: if, even in the case of adultery, no distinction is drawn in the punishment for men and women, why then should there be a difference in the case of less serious offences such as marital problems? In other words, one needs to search out the implications of the various interpretations of {adribu} in conjunction with the rest of the model, also by examining to what this may lead in the reverse case, namely in case of marital problems caused by the husband..

Suppose that {adribu} means: beat .
4:34 then reads: She is causing marital problems; He discusses the situation with her. If this leads nowhere, he abandons the marital bed; if that doesn’t help, he beats her. This seems a very illogical way of dealing with the problem, especially if one is aiming at a reconciliation, as it appears from the context of the following verse 4:35.

The meaning of {adribu}, deduced from 24:2 (similar offences, similar punishment) would mean that, in the reverse case, e.g., the man is causing the marital problems, the wife is entitled to give her husband a beating.

This sort of chain event would lead to unending marital conflict! It is obvious that this reasoning doesn’t hold water. It is, in fact, not at all in keeping with what the model imposes in the case of marital problems caused by the husband, which we shall discuss presently.

Now assume that {adribu} means: avoid, or possibly as suggested by Mohammed Abdul Malek: temporarily separate.
4:34 now reads: She is causing marital problems; He discusses the situation with her. If this leads nowhere, he abandons the marital bed; (he denies himself his right to sexual gratification); when this in turn doesn’t help, he avoids contact with her in all other ways (physical, verbal, etc.), or he leaves the home (and thereby denies himself even more marital rights), in the hope that this will ensure an adequate cooling-off period, keeping always in the back of the mind the possibility of a reconciliation (4:35). This is already a much more logical path towards a solution.

The meaning deduced on the ground of 24:2 (similar offences, similar punishment) would mean that, in the reverse case, e.g., the man is causing the marital problems, the wife would, need demanding, in turn (temporarily) suspend some of her marital rights, with an eye on a reconciliation.



And this is now precisely what Quran verse 4:128, e.g., the verse that deals with marital problems caused by man, states :

The model is perfectly consistent with this interpretation.
There exist various arguments for the interpretation of {adribu} as "avoid”, or possibly,  “temporarily separate from" :
The consistence of the thus interpreted model is perfectly intact.
The meaning of the verse is consistent with the pronouncements of Prophet Mohamed wherein he holds that husbands must not beat their wives and whereby he establishes the prohibition to use physical force against women.
Interpreted that way, the verse reflects now also the central principle of equality with which the Quran treats men and women. In this meaning of {adribu}, the application of the general rule "similar offences, similar punishment" (24:2), does, indeed, result in perfect symmetry between 4:34 and 4:128.
Verse 4:34 in its turn is now also conform to the spirit of the following verse that seeks a reconciliation.
"And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." (Quran 4:35)

“Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!" (Quran: 41:34)

Moreover, Islam prescribes maintaining control over one’s anger. The act of administering a beating as an expression of anger (unless caused by injustice) would be contrary to the Prophet’s words that proclaim anger is stirred by Satan and repeatedly prohibit people to succumb to such an impulse, urging them rather to keep and regain control of their emotions as quickly as possible in order to avoid acting in ways that would be regretted later on. Also from this perspective, the translation of {adribu} as avoiding, (gradually separating yourself (from her)), is consistent with the model, whereas a rendition like ‘beating’ is not.
"Who gets angry while standing ought to sit down. When this does not cool the anger, he should lie down! "(Ahmad, Tirmidhi).
"The best amongst you are those that are slow to anger and quick to cool off ... Beware of anger, for it is a live ember on the heart of the descendants of Adam" (Al-Tirmidhi)
"He who masters others in wrestling does not possess true power. Truly powerful is he who can master his emotions at a time of anger." (Bukhari)

Verse 4:34 continues by stating that when reconciliation happens, hence when the woman is once again wholly devoted to the marriage, then "seek not against them means (of annoyance)" (Yusuf Ali). In other words: leave her in peace and do not keep resurrecting the past incident, do not continue to hold it against her, and just drop the subject. The incident is to be considered closed. Also this is in keeping with the rules of propriety and decorum as established in the Quran and the Sunnah.

In other words, one can advance a strong argument in favour of the interpretation of {adribu} as "avoiding” (gradually separating yourself from her), while it is shown that an interpretation such as "beating" leads to inconsistencies and instability across the entire body of the interpretations in their mutual coherence.

The discussion about the meaning of “adribu” is one that is advanced exclusively by non-Arabic speakers. Arab-speakers agree that in this instance the word means “to beat”. This is also confirmed by the Hadith. If it is accepted that the Quran can be understood mistakenly also by Arab-speakers, then we really have a problem.

Moreover, ALL Shariah books interpret this verse as granting permission to beat a rebellious wife.

How absurd this discussion is may be demonstrated by the following story.

The Flemish daily ‘De Morgen’ published an article under the "spectacular" title: “Quran more woman-friendly than assumed.” You can read it in the following link.

The article is a schoolbook example of the lack of knowledge and competence of the Belgian press in its reporting about Islam. In the article we read: “That the man is enjoined to beat his (disobedient) wife appears to be an error in translation”, meaning hereby that Quran verse 4.34 suffers from systematic mistranslation. At the same time, on the website www.BijbelenKoran.nl to which the article makes reference, we find a complete translation of the Quran of which it is stated that this particular version was selected because: “The Dutch translation of the Quran by Professor Leemhuis enjoys wide acceptance.“ To add insult to injury, the ‘sensitive’ verse 4.34 is in this selfsame version also MISTRANSLATED as “beat her”.

It appears then that an ‘erroneous’ translation of the Quran is used while at the same time it is claimed that misunderstandings about Islam are based on just such translation errors. Difficult to get more absurd! Such articles as the above are symptomatic of the reporting about Islam and prove that Islamic logic differs from western thought patterns and processes. It further proves that converts, such as one of the initiators of the project www.BijbelenKoran.nl Karima Bisschop, following their indoctrination into Islam, in their turn are starting to apply Islamic logic and turning blind to the fact that what they have said in paragraph A, they themselves contradict in paragraph B.

Linda once again makes herself conspicuous by her faulty reasoning. Verse 24.2 pertains to a punishment imposed by the Islamic authorities, punishment (it must be said) that is equal for both men and women. Verse 4.34 deals with finding a solution to the problem that a man experiences with his (rebellious) wife and how he is to discipline her. The man is, in fact, responsible for his wife and it is his duty to make sure he keeps her under control. As such, it is perfectly normal that Allah would place at his disposal the necessary means to acquit himself of this responsibility.




Contrary to Linda’s contention, this approach is really very logical. If talking doesn’t help, he doesn’t sleep with her. He can, for instance, sleep with one of his other wives, likely to stir up gossip amongst them. If that doesn’t help, then he can resort to more drastic remedies, meaning he can proceed to give her a bit of a beating.

The “reconciliation” that is high on Linda’s list means in actual practice that the woman comes around and returns to being obedient to her husband as commanded by Allah. Verse 4.34 thus finishes as follows:
“...then if she obeys you, do not seek a way against her; verily Allah is All-High, Great..”





Who is this noble unknown?


This theory is not correct as “separate yourself temporarily” is not an option, as it appears from Hadith 11.2137 collected by Abu Dawood:

It appears then that a man cannot temporarily leave (separate himself from) his wife, except in the home, which is step 2 in his disciplinary procedure against her. Or could it be that Linda considers it logical in turn that when a man causes marital upsets, the woman simply packs up and departs somewhere else for a while until monsieur has cooled down? Have we not been reminded often enough that there is such a thing as the “principle of equality”?

The existence of verse 4:128 simplw proves that men and women are not equal. Verse 4:34 prescribes what a man has to do if his wife is rebellious (talk, sleep separately and beat) while verse 4:128 prescribes what a wife has to do (seek reconciliation).










A prohibition that was sometime later cancelled by one that allows a husband to beat his wife, but forbids him to strike her on the face.

























And the act of “wrongdoing” is once again laid at the doorstep of the wife disobeying her husband.



In this case, the anger is presumable also “caused by the wrongdoing” on the part of the wife failing to obey her husband.
The attentive reader may already read here between the lines that “anger caused by injustice” is, indeed, in keeping with the Islamic spirit. And the Muslim is obliged to act against this wrongdoing. And as we are aware already, Islam is chockfull of thousands of little rules which the Muslim must comply with, thus bringing him in conflict with the secular society. For instance, the Muslim girl that is not permitted to wear her hijab to school may, according to Linda, give vent to justified anger.









In this instance Linda finally has to drop the pretence and concedes that the woman was disobedient.  She here elects to phrase her subsequent submission as “once again wholly devoted”.
It is thus the woman that needs to be called to order. There exists no equivalent verse referring to the husband. Did Linda not talk earlier about “marital problems caused by man or woman”?

5.7. Quranic rebuke to men who consider women inferior

From all of the foregoing it has become evident that the Quran does not allow women to be treated as inferior or that they be discriminated against vis-à-vis men but, rather, that a principle of equality be followed and pursued systematically. This is also made manifest in the spirit of the exceptions, which are not meant to depict women as inferior beings but fit into general attempts to create a climate where justice prevails.

Aside from establishing the principle of equality, the Quran also contains a number of rebukes to men who consider women their inferiors. For instance, the verses 16:58-62 contain a very sharp rebuke to men that prefer sons to daughters.


The Quran does, in effect, proclaim that female and male children are fully equal (42:47-59).

The verses referred to above (16:58-62) deal with the habit of certain clans to bury their newborn daughters alive, a practice that was ended by Islam, which is obviously a praiseworthy edict. Linda expands this into “a rebuke to men who consider women their inferiors”. This is not at all what is meant here.

The quoted verses do not mean what Linda would like us to believe they mean. They only tell us that Allah decides about the birth of either male or female offspring. And this is a far cry from the newborn having equal rights once they reach adulthood. Which is the implication here as put to us by Linda.

6. Conclusion

From this reading of the Quran and Sunnah it thus appears that the woman is presented as a separate individual, endowed with her own personality under the law.
She is allowed to participate in politics and in the social and economic life of the community.



She is free to choose her husband,







and is free to have her own provisions entered into a marriage contract.



According to Islamic Law, marriage is a commitment between equals. The husband cannot demand anything from his wife, also no servitude on her part, whereas the wife, in contrast, can demand that her husband provide for her (and for her children).


The wife is at liberty to stay at home or go to work.




In both instances, it is the husband’s duty to (financially) take care of her needs (clothing, home, food, drugs, etc.) and he is expected to assume his share of the household chores.

The wife may keep for herself all of the assets she earns or inherits; she is not required to use any of it to contribute to the costs of maintaining the family. She may manage her assets in the manner of her own choosing; nobody can lay claim to these assets, not even her husband.

As a mother, a woman is honoured very highly. But regardless of children, it is the husband’s duty to treat his wife with respect, propriety and decorum, and kindness, and he should learn to tolerate her (case pertaining) less agreeable character traits.

The use of physical force against women is prohibited.


She can get a divorce, in which case she, in principle, gets custody of children under 7 years of age. She has the same right to an education as the man. Similar achievements result in similar rewards.





Most crucial is the fact that God proclaims her to be her husband’s equal, and that she will be judged by Him on precisely the same basis as men. Hence, in view of the above, what grounds are left for men to consider women inferior to them?

And, the truth is that men who consider women to be inferior to them are sharply rebuked in the Quran.

Nevertheless, daily reality teaches us that in many Muslim countries women do not possess the rights that have been accorded to them on the basis of the Quran and the Sunnah. As a result, there are within the Muslim world movements afoot that are actively pressing for the widespread introduction and acceptance of emancipation.











Some see the solution in "more of Islam", not less. They are aiming at the widespread dissemination of knowledge of the Quranic rights as given to women. As is the case, girls and women often are ignorant of their rights since within their barren economic conditions they have little access to education, if at all – which is nonetheless their right.

The above analysis has unquestionably demonstrated that there ought not necessarily  - and certainly not across the board - to exist a contradiction between women’s rights and Islam.

This is correct.



A woman can exercise her rights to the extent that the man who is responsible for her (father, husband, brother, ...) allows it. This man does, in fact, bear the responsibility for everything she does.

This is absolutely false. Islamic Law dictates that the woman can never marry on her own initiative. She “is being married off”. If she’s lucky, her father may allow her to pick her own husband. In actual practice, however, men and women in an Islamic society are kept segregated from each other to the degree that women have no chance of getting to know men.

When she is old enough and sufficiently educated to do so at the time she is being married off. In principle, the marriage contract is being concluded on her behalf by her father; she herself actually has nothing to do with this.

The Islamic meaning of a “commitment between equals” does, indeed, deviate considerably from our western ‘mores’ and norms. When a husband is made responsible for everything and the wife, in exchange, is asked to be ready to just place her body at his disposal, the concept of “equality” is truly a relative one.

This depends strictly on the husband. In actual practice, the husband derives no particular benefit from having his wife go to work and earn income since she does not need to contribute financially to the maintenance of the family.

This is wholly correct.




Yet another proof of the inequality between men and women.










Except when he considers it justified, in which case he is allowed to beat her.

The man needs no reason for divorce. For instance, should he wish to marry another woman but he cannot afford to maintain two wives, he simply divorces his first wife.

A wife can only get a divorce before the Court if she presents a well-reasoned dossier in substantiation of her claim; not, for instance, because she would like to marry a younger man.

This is correct but it has implications only in the hereafter. Here on earth, Islam discriminates against women.




This is not correct and it is not at all evident in the verses quoted by Linda in support of her contention.

The current reality teaches us that the situation is the worst in nations that are the most Islamic, and that emancipation only becomes possible when a western-minded or secular dictator comes to power, as it happened in the Turkey of the Ataturk, the Jordan of King Abdullah, the Morocco of Mohammed VI.

Except that in those countries that are striving for emancipation, we find a fierce opposition on the part of the religious bodies who consider this trend towards modernisation contrary to Islamic Law. They are the breeding grounds for terrorists that combat these regimes of “apostates” and readily resort to even mass assassinations; conversely, attempts are made to return to more of Islam by the democratic route, as it has been happening in Turkey and in Egypt.

All of this has little to do with women that do not know their rights; it is a question of Islam itself.





It is with her closing sentence that Linda compromises her entire argumentation. She has tried to prove that the position of women in Islam is indeed excellent, yet, when all is said and done, by her use of the highly modifying phrases “not necessarily”, and “certainly not across the board”, which clearly do not bespeak the unshakeable conviction of a confirmed believer, especially when directly coupled to “a contradiction between women’s rights and Islam”, she confesses her misgivings in the solidity and authority of her own interpretations.

End Part 9