Adam Sayid
Seven years ago, I published my rendition of one of the Qur’an’s most contentious verses, 4:34. This verse has been the subject of intense debate within both traditional and reformist Muslim circles. At the time, I distanced myself from the Hadith-centric interpretation that understood the term daraba in this context to mean “to beat.” Instead, I argued that daraba referred to separation, a position frequently held by Qur’an-centric theologians and some reformist voices within the Hadith-centric camp. The idea of a man striking his wife, even when framed as light or symbolic, seemed irreconcilable with the Qur’an’s broader principles of justice, compassion, and mutual respect. Given that daraba carries multiple meanings in Arabic, it seemed more reasonable to favour a reading that upheld the Qur’anic ideals of fairness and dignity in marriage.
Recently, however, I was challenged to reassess this verse after a conversation with a friend who presented a perspective that neither the Hadith-centric nor Qur’an-centric interpretations had fully considered. This prompted me to revisit the text with fresh scrutiny. The result was a shift in my understanding; one that no longer dismisses daraba as meaning “to beat,” but also does not lend itself to the traditional justification of domestic violence. Instead, I now see daraba as part of a descriptive account of human behaviour, rather than a prescriptive command from God. This distinction is vital.
The Qur’an, in many instances, does not simply impose an ideal but first reflects human tendencies before guiding people towards a higher moral path. It acknowledges human nature, the emotional responses, the impulses, the patterns of behaviour, before offering divine correction. Verse 4:34 follows this pattern. It does not issue an instruction but rather describes what typically happens in moments of marital strife: a man, fearing disloyalty or discord, first advises, then emotionally distances himself, and, in some cases, escalates to physical measures. These are not divine mandates but observed realities of human conduct.
This reading avoids the contradiction that arises when people assume the verse prescribes physical discipline while simultaneously advocating justice and kindness within marriage. If the Qur’an had intended to sanction any form of domestic violence, it would stand in direct conflict with its repeated injunctions for men to treat their wives with honour, to restrain their anger, and to uphold justice even at personal cost. The inconsistency of such a position should be evident to anyone who approaches the text holistically.
The verse does not stop at describing these behaviours. The following verse, 4:35, which is crucial in shaping the true meaning of 4:34, provides the actual prescription for handling unresolved conflict; arbitration. When personal efforts fail, the Qur’an directs couples to involve representatives from both families, ensuring that emotions do not dictate the outcome. This is the corrective. While 4:34 acknowledges the common human response to marital discord, 4:35 offers the ethical alternative; structured mediation. Which in modern practice it is known as marriage counselling.
This sequence reveals a fundamental aspect of the Qur’an’s moral philosophy. It does not assume human beings will always act with perfect wisdom and restraint; rather, it acknowledges their flaws and then provides guidance to steer them towards justice. In this case, it moves from the description of impulsive reactions to the prescription of a fair resolution. This is not a mere shift in language but a shift in paradigm; from reaction to reason, from instinct to principle.
This understanding not only resolves the long-standing tensions surrounding 4:34 but also upholds the Qur’an’s ethical coherence. It prevents the verse from being misused to legitimise harm while maintaining fidelity to its linguistic and contextual reality. It reinforces that the Qur’an is not a text that endorses power imbalances in marriage but rather one that seeks to elevate human conduct above base impulses.
By interpreting 4:34 as descriptive and 4:35 as prescriptive, the Qur’an’s message becomes clear: people may act impulsively in conflict, but divine guidance calls them towards restraint, mediation, and justice. This reading is not a departure from the text but a deeper engagement with it; one that remains true to both its language and its moral vision.
Here’s my updated rendition of the verses 4:34-35;
“Your typical phases of response when you fear discord or rebellion are that you first reprimand, then cease all intimacy, and then you escalate to physical confrontation or separation. However, the right recourse is to seek reconciliation, and once this is accomplished, do not use the old altercation to harass her. Remember, God is indeed the Mightiest and Greatest. Furthermore, if you fear that divorce is imminent and personal efforts of reconciliation have failed, seek mediation or counselling by appointing an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family; through which God will bring about harmony if they both sincerely desire reconciliation. For indeed, God is knowledgeable and fully aware.” (4:34-35, English rendition by Adam Sayid)
