Sexual Ethics in Islam (23 page)

Progressive interpretations contest the notion that men are inherently superior to women. Some argue that while the verse can indeed be taken to refer to favoring men over women, this favor is only in the limited realm of the greater inheritances men receive (possibly alluded to in the immediately preceding verses). These interpreters see this connection in the next clause

“if you have touched women” 119

of Surah 4, verse 34 which refers to men’s financial responsibil- ities (“and according to what they spend from their wealth”). Other interpreters stress that the Qur’an only states that “God has favored some over others” (or “one over the other”) not that men are favored over women; there is no grammatical reason for taking men as the “some” and women as the “others.” Thus, the verse might refer to some men being privileged over other men, thereby differing in the amount of wealth they use to maintain the women for whom they are
qawwamun
.
27
Regardless of the specifics, the most important element in rereadings of this verse is the focus on male support of women. If men are
qawwamun
in part “because of what” (one possible translation of
bi ma
along with “according to what”)
28
they spend on women, then their role is dependent on their exercise of financial responsibility. If men no longer support women, then they lose any resultant authority. Thus, in a family where both husband and wife con- tribute to the household expenses, the husband would not be the wife’s
qawwam
.

After giving one very broad statement about men and women, the verse turns to a specific category of women, the “righteous women” (
al-salihat
), defining them in two ways: as
hafizat li’l-ghayb
, women who guard or protect what is absent or unseen, and as
qanitat
, a term that can mean obedient, sub- servient, or deferential. Commentators disagree on how to interpret the phrase “
hafizat li’l-ghayb
,” particularly in conjunc- tion with
bi ma hafiza Allah
, according to, or with, or because of what God has guarded or protected. Based on a widely quoted hadith, most commentators suggest that these women are those who, in the absence of their husbands, protect their own chastity and their husbands’ possessions. Progressive and feminist inter- preters, however, have tended to interpret “those who guard what is unseen” as those who fulfill their religious obligations and protect their faith, as God has guarded it.

Classical and reformist interpretations of
qanitat
also diverge sharply.
Qanitat
is the feminine plural of
qanit
, meaning one who is obedient, subservient, or deferential, one who demonstrates
qunut
, from the same Arabic root (
q-n-t
). Medieval commentators often reduce
qunut
in this context to a

120 sexual ethics and islam

woman’s obedience to her husband. However, the term
qanit(at)
is used elsewhere in the Qur’an only for obedience to God and God’s Messenger.‘AbdullahYusuf Ali renders it as“devoutly obedi- ent,” in his translation of this verse, just as he does where the Qur’an applies the term to men and women alike in Surah 33, verse 35, which includes “devoutly obedient men (
qanitin
) and devoutly obedient women (
qanitat
)” among the list of those who will be rewarded by God. The Qur’an also refers to excep- tional figures such as Mary and Abraham with the term
qanit
.
29
There is thus no reason for considering the use of the term in Surah 4, verse 34 to refer to anything other than women’s obedi- ence and devotion to God. In fact, interpreting
qanitat
in terms of obedience to the husband is particularly problematic, given the way that the Qur’an treats obedience to human beings and human authorities (with the exception of the Prophet) as gener- ally significantly less worthy than obedience to God.
30

There is, however, some type of disjunction between deference to God and the misbehavior discussed in the latter portion of the verse. The root of the word
nushuz
(
n-sh-z
) refers to rising. Most medieval Qur’an commentators understand women’s
nushuz
as disobedience or rebelliousness (
isyan
) toward their husbands. Two behaviors repeatedly mentioned as forms of
nushuz
are leaving the marital home without permis- sion and refusing the husband’s sexual overtures. More rarely, disrespectfulness, “lewdness,” or failure to perform religious obligations are mentioned as forms of female
nushuz
.
31
A woman who commits
nushuz
is referred to as
nashiz
or
nashiza
. Men can also commit
nushuz
, but the term is understood differ- ently in that case.

Contemporary interpreters differ somewhat in their interpretation of
nushuz
, whether on the wife’s part or the husband’s. Generally, they view
nushuz
as a type of marital disharmony, arising on the part of either husband or wife, or lewd conduct, falling short of adultery, on the part of either spouse.
32
When a woman commits
nushuz
, past generations of authorities have generally agreed on measures that the husband may use. In addition to those sanctioned by the Qur’an, dis- cussed below, jurists generally agree that a man may suspend his

“if you have touched women” 121

wife’s support (
nafaqa
) if she refuses him and/or leaves home, since she has made herself unavailable to him.

Moroccan feminist Fatima Mernissi argues that
nushuz
is conceptually central to the Islamic gender system. “
Nushuz
is a Qur’anic concept; it means the rebellion of the wife against her Muslim husband’s authority,” she writes. “The Qur’an only refers to
nushuz
in order to describe the punishment a husband must inflict upon the wife in case she rebels.”
33
Mernissi elab- orates elsewhere: “
[N]ushuz
refers specifically to the wife’s rebellious tendencies toward her husband in an area where female obedience is vital: sexuality. The Qur’an calls
nushuz
the wife’s decision not to comply with her husband’s desire to have intercourse.”
34
Mernissi is mistaken in her assertion that the Qur’an explicitly defines
nushuz
in this way and in her claim that the term only appears in the Qur’an with reference to a wife’s behavior, but she is substantially correct in her characterization of how the classical and medieval scholars understood the wife’s
nushuz
.
35

The Qur’an also discusses a husband’s
nushuz
in Surah 4. As in verse 34, the Qur’anic passage on men’s
nushuz
(verse 128) appears near other verses discussing marital discord: “If a woman fears
nushuz
or rejection (
i‘rad
) from her husband, there is no blame on them if they come to a settlement, and settlement is better, even though people’s souls are stingy.”Interpreters gen- erally agree on the definition of, and remedies for, men’s
nushuz
. Most hold that the husband’s
nushuz
is his dislike of, or aversion toward, his wife. Some accounts hold that this verse was revealed in the case of a husband who came to dislike his wife because of her advancing age or some other factor. Some state that this man was Rafi‘ b. Khadij, who had married a young bride and favored her over his wife of many years. Other accounts suggest that it was revealed about the Prophet and his wife Sawda. In either case, the exegetes and jurists agree that the “settlement” the Qur’an refers to consists in the wife giving up certain marital rights, as both as both Rafi‘ ’s wife and Sawda eventually did, as a means of inducing her husband not to divorce her.

While most defined the husband’s
nushuz
as dislike of a wife, a minority held that the husband’s
nushuz
was his

122 sexual ethics and islam

maltreatment of his wife. Specifically, frequent or excessive vio- lence, including striking her in the face, constituted
nushuz
, in this view. (This interpretation has increased in popularity in modern times.) This condemnation of a husband physically harming his wife stands in contrast to the generally accepted view that he may strike her under certain circumstances. The three measures given in Surah 4, verse 34 to be taken in cases where men fear female
nushuz
are “admonish them, and aban- don them in bed, and strike them.” The verb
daraba
, “to strike,” is commonly translated in this context as “hit,” “beat,” or “scourge,” though two recent translations have rendered the word as “spank.”
36
The verb appears numerous times in the Qur’an with other meanings, leading some to question why it must be understood as striking in this context. One translator has proposed that
daraba
in this context does not mean strike, but rather “separate” or even “have sex with” (a metaphorical meaning attributed to the same Arabic root).
37
Commentators have broadly agreed, though, that the term is meant literally, not metaphorically, and that the verse gives permission for a hus- band to strike his wife for
nushuz
, although only if admonition and abandonment in bed have had no effect.

There are several layers to the problem of interpret- ations raised by these two verses discussing
nushuz
. It is clear that medieval interpreters were guided by certain unflattering pre- sumptions about female nature in their discussions of righteous women and marital obedience. Further, the treatment of male and female
nushuz
as unrelated phenomena, part of the atom- istic verse-by-verse approach that Fazlur Rahman criticizes, misses a vital connection between the two, something modern commentators such as Sayyid Qutb have remedied to a certain extent.
38
Yet simply noting that the Qur’an treats both male and female
nushuz
as problems does not automatically absolve the Qur’an of preferring the male over the female in this respect. That is to say, the consequences for female
nushuz
– even if
nushuz
is understood as antipathy or high-handedness, which can rightly be attributed to either spouse – do not merely differ in the interpretations of the exegetes, but are clearly differenti- ated in the text of the Qur’an itself.

“if you have touched women” 123

How, then, can one approach the Qur’an in a gender- conscious manner, neither accepting patriarchal premises nor falling into what Farid Esack refers to as “simplistic apologia”? The challenges facing feminist exegetes can be clearly seen in a comparison of two essays on Islam from the volume
What Men Owe to Women: Voices from the World’s Religions.
39
One, by Esack, challenges much conventional reformist wisdom about the Qur’an’s treatment of women and gender relations. The other, by Asghar Ali Engineer, exemplifies the most common modernist way of dealing with the issues involved, including a significant proportion of apologetic. Their essays center largely on Surah 2, verse 228 (the “degree” verse) and Surah 4, verse 34 (“Men are
qawwamun
”), notoriously difficult verses for exegetes concerned with gender justice and equality. Though women constitute the majority of contemporary scholars con- cerned with these problems, the similarities and differences in this pair of essays by male scholars exemplify both the promise and peril of particular approaches to the matters at hand.

Indicative of his unwillingness to grapple with particu- larly thorny problems, Engineer omits all reference to men’s “degree over” women when he quotes from Surah 2, verse 228. He presents only the first portion of the verse, which he trans- lates “The rights of the wives (with regard to their husbands) are equal to the (husbands’) rights with regard to them ...”
40
A more literal translation of this phrase would have, “To them (fem. plural) like due from them (fem. plural) [according to what is proper].”
41
Admittedly, this rendering is too vague to be satisfac- tory for those reading in English only; Engineer justifiably adds in the notion of rights and duties (
haqq
) which, while not pre- sent in the Arabic text, is clearly implied. Nonetheless, his use of the term “equal” without any qualifiers or alternatives is misleading. Still more disingenously, Engineer substitutes an ellipsis for the second portion of the verse which declares: “and men have a degree over them (fem. pl.).”
42
His omission of this clause is particularly problematic given that he uses this verse, in tandem with Surah 33, verse 35 (“For Muslim men and Muslim women ...”), as evidence for both justice and equality. According to Engineer, “Both of these verses leave no doubt that gender

124 sexual ethics and islam

justice is highly crucial to Qur’anic teachings. These verses also make it abundantly clear that gender justice cannot be realized without gender equality.”
43

Engineer’s dual assertion that gender equality is a necessary component of gender justice, and that both equality and justice are found in Surah 2, verse 228, is only rendered plausible by his manipulation of the Qur’anic text. By omitting the “degree” portion of the verse, Engineer avoids the stereotype of Muslim women as irremediably oppressed and without rights. However, to anyone familiar with the verse or who pur- sues the matter further, Engineer’s tactic appears as a blatant attempt to hide what the Qur’an says, as if that is the only way Muslim women’s rights could be affirmed. Engineer is not the only author to bypass the troublesome notion of a “degree;” non-Muslim Islamicist John Esposito, for example, gives a similarly partial quotation of the verse in
Women in Muslim Family Law
.
44
Of course, some authors – both non-Muslim polemicists and Muslims seeking to affirm male familial author- ity – take the opposite tack, only quoting the portion of the verse where the degree is mentioned, leaving off the description of the woman as a moral personality with both rights and obliga- tions.
45