‘Relativist Readings’ are readings of Quran which say that Quranic laws were revealed in a particular time and place. Humanity has moved on since then and has a better awareness and paradigms of truth nd justice. While Quranic laws were revolutionary for their time, now they lag behind in terms of meting out justice. Therefore, we need to focus on the higher intent of Sharia (maqasid al-shariah) which include justice and welfare (masalaha) and if necessary, repeal these laws.
Relativist Readers of Quran should be commended for pointing out the problems with Sharia as it stands. After all, Sharia law as it is codified and practised is a highly unjust system which causes a great deal oppression to people, most of all to Muslims themselves. Relativist Readers say that this is due to a literalist, decontextualised readings of Quran. Therefore, they should applauded for their critical approach to Quranic application.
However, I do feel that there are problems with the very principle of relativism. To say that Quranic verses were applicable at only some point but not others raises some deep theological issues and run contrary to some verses of Quran itself, in my understanding. Let’s take for example 6/114-115:
Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book elucidated; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers
And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
So from here, we understand that the word of Allah, manifests as his laws and elucidated in Quran will be perfected in truth and justice and they are unchangeable. They are not subject to time and space perhaps because they are the manifestation of Allah’s judiciousness.
However, my making this point is not emotional blackmail so that as believers, we simply accept these seemingly unjust laws. Rather 6/114-115 above should be seen as a principle. The laws of Allah must be just (‘adlan) which means that equality is the aim of these laws. This is the true maqsud or intent of any law and when the law doesn’t reflect this, the problem lies in our interpretation, not with the text itself.
One of the laws judged as ‘unfair’ is the following verse:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand (4/34)
This statement is seen as a universal statement that men can strike their wives. In Traditionalist literature extensively discusses how the Prophet treated his wives kindly and how if the need to strike arose, it should be done with a miswak as a symbolic gesture. Why was there a need for this literature? Perhaps because instinctively, even conservative Traditionalists knew that wife-beating is an horrible act in any situation. (more on instinct and objectivity in part 2).
The Relativist Readers may say that this is due to the mentality of 7th century Arabia which does acknowledge the right of men to beat women but say that Quran moderates this right. So while for us this may seem harsh, for ancient Arabs this was a move forward.
However, how do we actually know this? The information which is retrievable from that period is at best, 150 years after hijrah (emigration of the Prophet which marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar) ! By then, one could surely expect apologist literature to emerge, defending the orthodox interpretation by saying the conditions were much worse and hence this justify this heinous teaching.
This is probably why Quran is devoid of this ‘historical literature’ yet calls itself ‘elucidated’ (as per 6/114 above). It was never meant to be compared to historical conditions which we could never prove anyway. This is not part of Quranic epistemology (what it considers to be ‘knowledge’), in my opinion.
In any case, this does leave us with the problem of wife beating. However apologetic Muslim jurists have been, it does seem that Allah has given permission for husbands to beat their wives. Can that be correct at any time at all? Why did Allah not simply tell them to stop? Why was there a need to moderate this act when clearly all striking or beating is to humiliate and psychologically, if not physically a damage a person?
I believe the answer lies within the text itself. The problem with Relativist Readings is that when they encounter a problem like 4/34 above, they contextualise the problem to history which as we can see, relativises Quran and uses conjectural information at that. This history obviously isn’t neutral and creates its own stage to augment to support its case. In this case, it tells us that men used to beat their wives so badly but now they have to do it only after a procedure! Relativist Readers then conclude that this verse should not be applied anymore. The losers here would be the Readers of Quran who will miss out on using the correctly interpreted verses in their lives because they assume the ‘beat’ interpretation is automatically correct.
Rather than contextualising to history, I suggest contextualising the verse to its textual position (which is what con*text*ualisation means!) . The first thing we should do is to think of general principles, for example:
1. The word of Allah should be just (as per 6/115 above)
2. There is no compulsion in ad-deen (2/256) which should include beating anyone into obedience
3. Believers can only use violence in defence of self and others (2/190).
These by themselves should already be enough to negate the ‘strike’ interpretation since our readings cannot have many contradictions if they are approved by Allah (4/82). However, let us consider the various angles we can explore in the verse itself to arrive at a more Quranic (if we accept the principles above) interpretation:
1. The theme of this entire chapter (Ch 4, An-Nisaa) begins with a call to humankind to mutually augment themselves and to establish relationships with people who have no one to rely upon (4/1-3). This should set the flow of the chapter into verse 34, the verse in question. How can beating people be possibly part of this overall theme?
2. 4/34 is contained in the passage beginning 4/29 which speaks about believers in the state of trade and the development of their souls. This continues all the way up to 4/34 itself and even the same phraseology is used (the preference of Allah for some over the others). Why then is 4/34 read as if the previous context does not exist? How can it be about marital issues when contextually speaking, it flows from a different theme altogether?
3. The words ‘ar-rijaal’ and ‘an-nisaa’ (usually translated as ‘the men’ and ‘the women’) do not necessarily have to be translated this way. ‘Rijaal’ comes from the word ‘rijl’ (meaning ‘feet’ but connoting independence, mobility) and ‘nisaa’ means those who come after (used in the quran to show other than actual presence for example in 3/61). Therefore given the context, ‘ar-rijaal’ and ‘an-nisaa’ could easily refer to those who are in charge of the trading systems of 4/29 and those who are employed by them respectively.
4. If 4/34 is understood literally as the Traditionalists would have us believe, it is not husbands who have the right to strike their wives. All men have the right to strike all women! That is what it literally reads (the men and the women). Husbands and wives are merely inferences but Traditionalists tell us that it is understood and that synonyms exist in Quran. I would ask, if Quran uses the words husbands and wives (bu’ul and imra’) elsewhere, why not use it here? Why was there any need for any kind of inference? If law books are prized for their precision in language, why is the greatest lawgiver using elliptical words to make His point?
5. The word ‘beat’ (daraba) itself. Arab speakers would insist the word means ‘beat’ and colloquially it does. Why then is it impossible to see the word used in Quran itself in this way? We see verses which tell us:
a. Allah daraba to us examples
b. We are to ‘daraba’ on the earth (4/94)
If Quran is consistent in its use of words, then ‘daraba’ cannot possibly mean ‘beat’. The Arabs do not decide meanings through ‘well known meanings’ (well known by whom, where and when?).
The word ‘daraba’ is best translated as ‘impart/depart’. In the case of 4/34, departing here is best understood as separation. 4/35 then talks about the terms of separation and reconciliation. Daraba as ‘beating’ simply does not fit into this context.
6. The words in 4/34 which leads up to the ‘striking’ stage is simultaneous, not sequential. It says to advise them and forsake them in and beat them. The Arabic connective word is ‘wa’ which denotes simultaneity. If this were a step by step process, the connective word would be ‘thumma’ (like in 7/11 which gives the process of creation). So once again, we can see that the Traditionalist understanding requires a leap , this time a grammatical one.
In summary, we can see that the Relativist Reading gives too much credit to the historical information which purports to contextualise it. More so, they also fail to question normative interpretations even though there are many angles from which to question. The victim in all this is Quran itself whose principles are doomed to be unpractised but the real losers are us because we have consigned Quran to history and failed to utilise its life-giving principles.
In this next part of this analysis, we will look at the role of intuition in Quran reading and its connection with objectivity.
Quranology Blog 