As we prepare for the international campaign “16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence,” observed in more than 160 countries around the world, we are witnessing yet another femicide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Aldina Jahić was murdered in Mostar, accompanied by the usual explanations in some media that the perpetrator, Anis Kalajdžić, “was a good man.” He was so “good” that he followed her to Mostar and chased her with a gun while bystanders silently watched and made no attempt to stop him. He was so “good” that he killed the woman he claimed to love, because if she could not be his in the way he demanded, then she could belong to no one. He was so “good” that we continue searching for justifications for the horrific crime he committed.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina and across the Balkans, cases of femicide occur with alarming frequency, and the media often portray them as unpredictable tragedies committed by a man who was supposedly “quiet,” “a good neighbor,” “a devoted father,” or someone who “never showed signs of violence.” These types of statements are not harmless. They protect perpetrators, conceal structural causes, and contribute to a culture in which violence becomes normalized and invisible—sending a message to women that they should remain silent and endure, because no one will take them seriously or protect them.
The question we must ask ourselves is: why do we as a society constantly look for excuses for perpetrators of violence? Does it even matter if the perpetrator was considered “good” in his social or family environment, and can that possibly exempt him from responsibility for violence?
The responsibility lies with all of us, because we support and maintain patriarchy—and until we confront our patriarchal beliefs about the superiority and dominance of men over women, we will not escape the culture of violence. Much is hidden in the “treasure chests” of our culture, customs, and religious interpretations that encourage and justify the unquestioned authority of the man and his dominance over the woman.
It is important to name the problems openly and speak clearly about why we uphold misogyny and sexism, why we uncritically accept the “natural,” God-given authority of men, and thus sustain the patriarchal value system. This system is maintained not only by men but by an entire social structure that normalizes hierarchy between men and women. In this sense, patriarchy is an ideology and an institution, not a biological fact. The system and social structures persist because men believe their power is “natural”—and unfortunately, many women help defend patriarchy, sometimes out of fear, sometimes to preserve their own positions. Religious authorities also bear responsibility, as many still interpret sacred texts hierarchically, justifying the superiority of men over women as divinely ordained.
Although it is encouraging to hear voices from the Islamic Community—such as the statement of the chief imam of the Mostar Majlis, Dine ef. Maksumić, and the condemnation issued by the Interreligious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina—this is not enough, because we still do not address the foundations used to justify violence against women, which lie, among other things, in the interpretations of sacred scriptures. Many Muslim men and women still repeat what they were taught: that the man is one degree above the woman (Qur’an 2:228) and that he has the right to “physically discipline” her if she is disobedient (Qur’an 4:34).
These are among the most persistent pillars of patriarchy in Muslim communities, used to support the supposed “natural,” God-given authority of men over women. Such selective and literalist readings of the Qur’an still prevail today. Yet it is important to note that within the Islamic Community there are imams who openly speak against violence against women,1 and that the Islamic Community officially considers violence against women prohibited. 2 Unfortunately, patriarchal interpretations of Islam remain the norm and dominate the texts used in educational institutions of the Islamic Community.
A brief online search shows that most texts reinforce the authority of men in marriage and family, including their right to control women and even physically discipline them, “not too much,” as some commentators say. On one portal, N-um, an author explains the importance of hierarchical relations in marriage:
“The man is one degree above the woman, not because of intelligence or because he is better, but because marriage is also based on the principle of hierarchy. For the sake of establishing order in which everyone knows their duties and tasks. Imbalance occurs precisely when the authority of the head of the household is questioned. ‘Where there are many grandmothers, the children are weak,’ says the proverb.” 3
Another text, by Jamal Badawi on the portal Akos.ba, explains physical discipline this way:
“Based on the Qur’an and hadith, this measure may be used in cases of the wife’s indecency or extreme willfulness and exclusivism shown toward the husband’s reasonable requests and his initiative for peaceful resolution of marital problems. Even then, other methods such as admonition should be tried first.” 4
If we examine the literature used as source material in many Islamic faculties in the region, it becomes clear that patriarchal interpretations remain deeply rooted. They shape future imams, teachers of religious education, theologians who then reproduce patterns that legitimize violence against women under the cover of faith. One illustrative example is the commentary of Ibn Kathir, distributed to imams in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Another is the widespread Qur’an translations in which most translators made no effort to translate Qur’an 4:34 in accordance with core principles of justice and mercy.
A third example is the recently published Qur’an commentary by professor Safvet Halilović, who in interpreting the passage 4:34 offers the classical explanation that a man has the right to “lightly strike” his wife if earlier steps of admonition fail. In his translation and commentary, similar to most previous translations, the pedagogy of patriarchy is clearly visible:
“As for those (wives) whose disobedience you fear, advise them with kind words; if kind words do not yield results, then ignore them in bed and do not approach them. If ignoring them in bed does not affect them, then strike them, but in such a way that you do not injure them!”5
Halilović explains that this refers to a “light strike with a miswak or toothbrush,” a gesture expressing the husband’s “frustration and dissatisfaction.” Even more concerning is his claim that such interpretation is “reasonable” and does not violate “human dignity” or “mutual respect” between spouses. This interpretation raises several key issues:
1. Pedagogy of patriarchy: the man as the woman’s disciplinarian
Many classical and contemporary interpretations assume that the man is the “natural,” rational, morally superior educator of the woman. From this follows the idea that a woman must be under “disciplinary supervision,” that a man has the right to judge her behavior, that “disobedience” justifies physical discipline, and that his frustration is more important than her dignity. In such a model, violence, even if called “light” becomes a tool for maintaining power and control.
2. Absurd idealization of male self-control
These interpretations assume a caricatured image of a man who perfectly controls himself, who knows exactly how and when to “ignore” his wife, who calmly goes to the bathroom to get a miswak or toothbrush and then returns to “lightly strike” her without consequences. This is theological fiction, not the reality of power relations in patriarchal societies where women are taught to stay silent unless they want to be beaten or killed.
In reality, violence against women does not begin or end with a “light strike”, it begins with words and interpretations that romantically mask the structural nature of male domination legitimized as divine regulation of marital and family relations.
3. Normalizing violence through minimization
Calling a strike “light,” “symbolic,” or “non-injurious” serves to make physical violence acceptable. And then who will debate whether it was a toothbrush or a fist, a slap or internal injuries and bleeding that cannot be seen, not to mention psychological harm that destroys dignity and self-respect? It is therefore crucial that sermons in mosques, as well as classrooms and other settings, clearly state:
- every strike is violence
- every strike is a threat
- every strike tells the woman she is subordinate
- every strike has psychological consequences because it destroys dignity and self-esteem
- every strike is part of a broader dynamic of control and power over women
4. Interpretations that justify violence become structural violence
Such interpretations do not remain confined to books or classrooms, they become arguments in marriage counseling, in police stations, in social work centers, and in other institutions that turn a blind eye to cultural and patriarchal religious norms. When a religious authority says it is “normal” to strike a woman, even symbolically, he legitimizes a broader pattern of violence. We must remember that patriarchy does not survive through overt brutality, but through “light,” “reasonable,” and “dignified” forms of violence presented as love, care, or pedagogical guidance.
A Call for Responsibility and Change
At a time when femicides happen almost daily, and when some religious authorities still offer interpretations of Islam that directly or indirectly justify violence against women, it is entirely justified to expect the Islamic Community to take clear, public, and unequivocal responsibility. This means speaking against violence across all networks, portals, and mosques; removing from the curricula of madrasas and faculties all literature that normalizes male dominance and physical punishment of women; and offering contemporary, ethically responsible, and theologically grounded translations of the Qur’an, rather than those that still translate the problematic verb daraba as “strike them” (4:34) and then try to soften its meaning by saying the strike should be “light.”
Every institutional silence, relativization, or continued circulation of such interpretations becomes part of the structural violence that endangers women’s lives.
Let me conclude by saying: patriarchal interpretations are not God’s word. They are projections of male power onto the sacred text. Religious authorities are therefore responsible for the translations and interpretations they offer, for the kinds of knowledge they transmit, and for the practices they justify through silence. Our responsibility is to question such interpretations and practices, because only God is sacred, human life and dignity are sacred, and our understandings of sanctity must never violate them.
