Exposing Islam

Post 9: Domestic Violence—Justified in Scripture

Subtitle: Qur’an 4:34 Grants Men Divine Permission to Strike Their Wives

Qur’an 4:34 explicitly authorizes husbands to strike disobedient wives after verbal admonishment and sexual abandonment. Traditional exegesis, classical jurisprudence, and centuries of practice have normalized domestic violence within a religious framework. Despite modern apologetics, the plain text provides a divine license for male aggression under the guise of household leadership.

1. The Verse in Question: Qur’an 4:34

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women... So righteous women are devoutly obedient... As for those from whom you fear rebellion (nushuz),
– admonish them,
– abandon them in bed,
– and strike them (waidribuhunna).”

This verse is not ambiguous. It outlines a three-step escalation of disciplinary action a man may take against his wife if he fears her disobedience:

Admonish her,
Abstain from sex (sleeping apart),
Strike her.

2. Linguistic Clarity: "Wadribuhunna" Means "Strike"

Some modern translators attempt to soften “waidribuhunna” into “leave them,” “separate from them,” or “lightly tap.” These re-interpretations are:

Linguistically unsustainable — “daraba” in this form consistently means to hit/strike in Arabic usage.
Historically unsupported — Classical commentators (Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi) all interpreted it as physical discipline.
Legally institutionalized — Traditional Islamic fiqh (e.g., Maliki, Hanbali) outlines permissible forms of hitting.

Thus, the original Arabic—and over 1,300 years of scholarship—affirm that beating is allowed, though scholars debated its severity.

3. Male Authority and Female Obedience

The verse begins by asserting:

“Men are qawwamun (maintainers/guardians) over women…”

This establishes a hierarchical structure: the man is the head, the woman must be obedient. The punishment (beating) is triggered not by infidelity, but by disobedience (“nushuz”), which could be verbal resistance, refusal of intimacy, or perceived arrogance.

🧩 Built-in Power Asymmetry:

Men command → women comply.
Men discipline → women submit.

4. Muhammad’s Personal Reinforcement

In Sahih Bukhari 5825, Muhammad permitted men to beat their wives:

“When they (wives) do not listen to you, beat them but without severity.”

While he warned against cruelty, he never forbade physical discipline. In Sahih Muslim 2127a, he responded to women complaining of being beaten:

“They are not the best among you.”

But again, he did not outlaw the practice—he merely encouraged gentler behavior. The power dynamic remained intact.

5. Classical Islamic Law Codified Beating

Fiqh manuals across schools allowed wife-beating:

Hanafi: Permits beating if the wife is disobedient or refuses conjugal rights.
Maliki: Describes acceptable instruments (e.g., small sticks).
Hanbali: Stipulates non-lethal force, not causing permanent injury.
Shafi’i: Similar to Hanbali; emphasizes restraint but not prohibition.

In each case, the violence is legal, religious, and gendered—a man beats his wife, never vice versa.

6. Apologetics vs. the Text

Modern Muslim apologists argue:

“The beating is symbolic, not physical.”
“It’s a last resort and discouraged.”
“The Prophet never beat his wives.”

But these defenses collapse under scrutiny:

Symbolic or not, the verb “daraba” refers to real striking in every Qur’anic context.
If it were symbolic, why was it codified in law and practiced by generations of Muslims?
The Prophet’s personal example is irrelevant when the law he revealed permits beating.

7. Ethical Consequences: Divine Endorsement of Abuse

By placing male authority and physical punishment into divine revelation, the Qur’an turns domestic violence from a moral failure into a regulated right. This:

Empowers abusive behavior under a legal shield.
Blocks female recourse—a woman who complains is challenging Allah’s command.
Normalizes fear-based relationships, not mutual respect.

Conclusion: A Sacred Justification for Violence

Qur’an 4:34 is not a misinterpreted relic—it is a clear, authoritative justification for violence against women when they step outside their prescribed role. While modern Muslims may seek to reinterpret or suppress this reality, the scripture, hadith, and centuries of jurisprudence speak for themselves.

The moral and logical conflict is clear:
If Islam is a religion of justice, why does it sanctify inequality and authorize harm in the home?