Islamic scholars leave no room for ambiguity when condemning terrorism. Brutality in the name of religion is categorically rejected through fatwas and public statements. Yet for millions of Muslim women, this principled denunciation of violence stops at the front door.
Domestic violence rarely attracts the same moral urgency. In fact, many clerics continue to legitimise wife-beating as an Islamic right vested in husbands to "discipline" their wives. The paradox is stark: public violence that embarrasses the community is condemned, while private violence inflicted on women is rationalised—often by invoking medieval interpretations of Islamic texts.
The justification almost always rests on Quran 4:34, a verse that has been read for centuries as granting husbands the authority to beat disobedient wives. While modern Muslim scholars have attempted more humane reinterpretations, these remain marginal compared to the dominant orthodox position that treats wife-beating as lawful, if regulated. Violence, in other words, is not rejected—only managed.
The consequences of this theology are not abstract. In 2007, a German judge denied a Moroccan woman a fast-track divorce despite evidence of domestic abuse, arguing that such violence was culturally and religiously acceptable under Islam.
The judge explicitly cited Quran 4:34 as justification, prompting outrage but also revealing how deeply these interpretations have travelled beyond Muslim societies themselves.
In 2016, Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology proposed a "women's protection bill" that did the opposite of what its name promised. The bill allowed husbands to "lightly" beat their wives for infractions such as refusing sex or dressing inappropriately.
Even at the highest levels of Islamic authority, such views persist. In 2019, Egypt's Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Imam Ahmad Al-Tayeb, arguably the most influential Sunni authority in the world, sparked widespread criticism when he affirmed a husband's right to beat his wife.
That such views could be articulated from Islam's most prestigious pulpit speaks volumes about how deeply entrenched the problem of Quranic misinterpretation remains. This is not merely a matter of patriarchal attitudes; it is a failure of intellectual honesty in reading the text itself.
In a recent article titled Invalidate all forms of unilateral talaq on the wrongful justification of unilateral divorce by the ulema, I argued that the Quran outlines a graduated, conciliatory process for resolving marital discord.
First, it [the Quran] recommends (in 4:34-35) private resolution (izu hunna). If this fails, the next step is temporary physical separation (uhjuru hunna). Should discord continue, the husband is advised, as a third step, to communicate clearly to his wife (izribu hunna) the seriousness of the dispute and attempt to repair the relationship.
One response to this came from a PhD candidate at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, who wrote to me saying:
As a student of Arabic language, I'm certain that the literal meaning of "izribu hunna" is "beat them". Moreover, I haven't come across any interpretation that departs so radically from this literal connotation in the manner suggested by your definition. I would therefore really appreciate it if you help me to be acquainted with the interpretive framework or exegetical basis on which this particular rendering has been adopted.
This reaction is telling, not because it is malicious, but because it reflects how deeply the assumption of violence has been normalised—even among trained students of Arabic. It therefore becomes imperative to clarify that, in the context of 4:34, izribu hunna (which is derived from the triliteral root zaad–ra–ba, zaraba) cannot be reduced to "beat them", even though influential translators and commentators—such as Ibn Kathir, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and Abul Ala Maududi—have rendered it as "beat them", often with the caveat "lightly".
The problem is not linguistic ignorance; it is selective linguistics. Classical commentators routinely ignore the fact that zaraba carries a wide range of meanings in the Quran, many of which have nothing to do with physical violence. Of the 58 times the root occurs in the Quran, it is used 32 times in the sense of illustrating or explaining something by example. Only 16 times does it clearly mean "to strike"—primarily in non-interpersonal contexts, such as Moses striking the rock or angels striking the faces of sinners. The remaining occurrences convey metaphorical or functional meanings entirely unrelated to beating.
To put it plainly, translating izribu hunna as "beat them" is not the inevitable conclusion of Arabic philology; it is a choice shaped by patriarchal assumptions.
To summarise, the Quran uses zaraba in at least five distinct meanings:
Meaning 1: "To explain through an example"
(2:26), (4:34), (13:17 - twice in the same verse), (14:24, 25, 45), (16: 74, 75, 76, 112), (17:48), (18:32, 45), (22:73), (24:35), (25:9, 39), (29:43), (30:28, 58), (36:13, 78), (39:27, 29), (43:17, 57, 58), (47:3), (59:21) and (66:10, 11).
Meaning 2: "To strike" or "to hit something"
(2:60, 61, 73), (3:112 - twice in the same verse) (7:160), (8:12 - twice in the same verse & 50), (20:77), (24:31), (26:63), (37:93), (38:44) and (47:4, 27).
Meaning 3: "To travel through the earth" or "to go"
(2:273), (3:156), (4:94, 101), (5:106) and (73:20).
Meaning 4: "To draw a veil over something" or "to cover" or "place a barrier"
(18:11), (24:31) and (57:13).
Meaning 5: "To take away" or "to withdraw a favour"
(43:5).
Given the wide range of meanings in which zaraba is used in the Quran, it follows logically that context—not habit or tradition—must determine its meaning in any given verse.
A look at 24:31would prove this. In this verse, zaraba is used twice, but in different meanings. The first usage occurs in the beginning in the clause wal yazribna bikhumoori hinna ala juyoobi hinna (let them draw their coverings over their bosoms), and the second one is found at the end of the verse in walaa yazribna bi arjuli hinna liyu’lama maayuqfeena min zeenati hinna (let them not strike their feet so that the adornment that they hide may be known).
The words highlighted in bold italics denote the two different connotations of yazribna, a derivative of zaraba, which are context-specific and not interchangeable. It would make no sense to read the first clause as "let them strike their coverings over their bosoms". Likewise, rendering the second clause as "let them not draw their feet" would strip the verse of all coherence. The Quran itself, therefore, demonstrates that zaraba does not possess a single, fixed meaning.
Applying this Quranic logic to verse 4:34 is both reasonable and necessary. The entire passage concerns marital discord and its resolution. It outlines a step-by-step process aimed at restoring harmony within the marriage. In such a context, izribu hunna must be understood in a manner consistent with reconciliation, not escalation. Read contextually, it conveys the meaning "explain to them clearly", "impress upon them the seriousness of the matter", or "communicate firmly"—not "beat them".
If izribu hunna were intended to sanction physical violence, it would directly undermine the very objective of the verse. How could beating a wife, no matter how euphemistically described as "light", possibly lead to reconciliation? Violence does not resolve discord; it entrenches it. The Quran's stated aim in this passage is to heal the marital relationship, not to fracture it further.
Moreover, the issue is not one of degree—light beating versus severe beating—but of dignity. Physical assault is an attack on self-esteem and personhood. The humiliation it inflicts often outlasts the pain itself, corroding trust, respect, and emotional security. To suggest that the Quran legitimises such degradation within marriage is not only morally troubling; it amounts to an affront to divine wisdom.
A scripture that repeatedly emphasises compassion, justice, and mutual respect cannot plausibly authorise the dehumanisation of one spouse by the other. The persistence of such interpretations says far more about the interpreters than about the Quran they claim to defend.
Misuse of hadees
Surprisingly, many exegetes of the Quran have not merely overlooked these linguistic and contextual truths; they have actively sought to reinforce misogynistic translations by selectively invoking Prophetic traditions (aḥaadees, singular ḥadees). Chief among these are reports in which the Prophet is said to have instructed men not to beat their wives brutally or in a manner that leaves visible marks. Such narrations are presented as evidence that wife-beating is permissible, provided it is restrained.
This selective reading collapses under even minimal scrutiny. It directly contradicts a well-known ḥadees recorded in Kitab al Adab of Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhari, in which the Prophet sharply rebukes such behaviour, asking: "How does one of you beat his wife as he beats a stallion camel, and then embrace her (that is, sleeps with her)?" The censure is unmistakable.
Equally ignored are numerous Prophetic pronouncements that place kindness to one’s wife at the very centre of faith. The Prophet famously described those who are best to their wives as the most complete of believers, and he is quoted in Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhari as saying that a true Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands people are safe. These statements leave little room for legitimising domestic violence, however euphemistically framed.
Nevertheless, the hadees often cited along with verse 4:34 to justify wife-beating appears in Kitab al-Ḥajj of Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim. The relevant phrase, addressed in the context of marital discord, reads: fazribu hunna zarban ghaira mubarrahin - commonly translated as “beat them, but not severely.” The phrase “not severe” (mubarrahin) is then interpreted to mean a “light” beating that leaves no marks.
This reading, however, collapses once fazribu hunna in the hadees is understood correctly and contextually, as "explain to them" rather than "beat them", as discussed above. Under this rendering, the phrase naturally conveys the meaning: “explain to them in a manner that does not hurt them.” Far from being strained, this interpretation restores coherence between the Prophet’s teachings, his personal conduct, and the Quran’s moral framework.
It is worth asking: why would a Prophet who consistently championed justice, compassion, and dignity—especially for women—suddenly authorise husbands to strike their wives as a corrective measure? This is particularly implausible given that his own conduct towards his wives was exemplary and entirely free of violence. And if physical punishment were truly the Quranic solution to marital wrongdoing, what would follow when a husband acts against the interests of his wife? Should she then be authorised to strike him in return? The absurdity of such logic is self-evident.
Muslim theologians must understand that the Quran provides the guiding principle for moral correction: "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good counsel, and argue with them in a manner that is best and most gracious" (16:125). This verse establishes that raising one's hand to correct another is not an option in Islam; raising one's consciousness is.
What persists, therefore, in the name of Shariah is not divine sanction for domestic violence, but a human determination to read power into scripture where none exists.
Until Muslim theological institutions give up their medieval understanding of Islam, even well-meaning fatwas against terrorism will continue to ring hollow for half the community - especially when the victims are women, and the violence is sanctified by scripture.
(The author is an independent researcher and the Secretary-General of the Chennai-based Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought. E-mail: themoderates2020@gmail.com Twitter: @FaizEngineer)