Prophet Muhammad forbade men to rebuke or beat their wives.

Bahz Ibn Hakim narrated: "I asked the Prophet how to treat women and he said: Feed them as you feed your own selves, clothe them as you clothe your own selves, and do not beat or rebuke them."

How’s this? Does the Quran then not give husbands permission to beat disobedient wives?

This, however, belongs to the cultural heritage, not to the original Message.






Modernists, therefore, are pleading for a review and possible revision of these interpretations.



























































What has thus far been said about the place of women in Islam points to a strong principle of equality within a model that displays great respect for the woman.

A rule that would advance the principle that husbands are permitted to “beat their disobedient wives” would be totally alien to this model – although it suits a lot of men very well that a number of words admit of several meanings, so that the isolated verses lend themselves to interpretations in that sense.

Whether or not that interpretation can be valid, and what other interpretation might possibly be seriously entertained, will however become rapidly clear from a detailed analysis of the verse in question taken in conjunction with other rules from the Quranic model.

Our  comment :

You can find a detailed analysis of the use of violence against women in the following link (in English).

Linda quotes here a Hadith wherein Mohammed forbids the beating of women. Alas for Linda, this prohibition has been superseded by the following pronouncement of Muhammad, as narrated by Abu Dawood (11.2141):

“Abdullah ibn Abu Dhubab narrated :"Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said : Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you””

And, indeed, it is stated in verse 4.34 that a husband must beat his wife if she disobeys him and other disciplinary recourse has proven inadequate. We quote here the complete verse:

4.34. Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish her, and leave her alone in the sleeping-places and chastise her; then if she obeys you, do not seek a way against her; surely Allah is High, Great.

Note that the translator has rendered the Arabic feminine plural “idrabuhunna” (beat them) as “chastise her,, in the feminine singular.

Verse 4.34 states that disobedient wives need to be dealt with in 3 steps : talking, refusing to share the marital bed, and administering a beating. Linda particularly addresses herself to the 3rd step. As it is, the mere mention of the term “disobedient women” and the 3-step treatment of this ‘aberration’ (sic) are in themselves humiliating enough, regardless of whether “beating ” truly implies “beating”,  which Linda will do her utmost to reason away. The fact that there does not exist a similar verse concerning the treatment a wife ought to mete out to her disobedient husband makes it clear Islam considers a wife to be subordinate, and subject, to the man and confirms her inferior status within the Islamic society.

By focussing on the ‘permission’ or ‘prohibition’ of wife-beating, Linda lays down another smoke screen.

When certain verses are in conflict with human rights or with the woman’s dignity, then this is ALWAYS attributed to an erroneous translation. Now it happens to be a fact that ALL of the authoritative interpretations of the Quran originate amongst the so-called “traditionalists”. And well nigh all of these adhere to the same account. This is not surprising since their rendition is being supported by relevant Hadith and passages from the earliest biographies of Muhammad. As is the case in this instance. See the Hadith mentioned by us and which replaced (cancelled) the one mentioned by Linda. The “traditionalists” consider ALL reliable Hadith whereas Linda selects the ones that support her argument while ignoring - either or not deliberately and purposefully - the others.

At this point, Linda ventures into the field of criticism against Allah Himself. Allah is, in effect, All-Knowing and should have foreseen the complications of His sending the Quran into a patriarchal society. The Quran should have been sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to preclude the likelihood of interpretation or speculation! Linda shifts the responsibility for this divergence upon the Muslim who practises his faith erroneously, but no less upon the non-Muslim who for some “inexplicable” reason wants to present Islam in a bad light, while “the message is really so beautiful”.

The so-called “modernists” referred to by Linda lack any kind of authority within the Islamic community. Their twisted argumentation can readily be unveiled seeing that Arabic is seldom their mother tongue or because they do not possess a total view across the entire Hadith canon. Or they attempt to dismiss certain “disturbing” Hadith from their minds or they pretend that these do not exist.

It is therefore not at all surprising that the American convert, Professor of Islam and “modernist” Amina Wadud did not succeed during her stay at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo (the highest authority in Sunni Islam) to convince the scholars there to accept her Quran interpretation.

The Al-Azhar University in 1991 certified a book titled, “Reliance of the Traveller”, a handbook on Islamic Law. In § m10.12, “How to treat a rebellious woman”, the following is stated on p. 540: 

“When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz), either in words when she answers him coldly, where she is used to be polite, or when he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her habit, or in her actions, for instance, when she displays her aversion for him whereas in the past she was kind and cheerful, he then warns her in words (without keeping away from her or beating her, since she may have a reason).  The warning could be to tell her, “fear Allah with regards to the rights that you owe me,” or it may be to explain to her that her rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to maintain her and to let her have her turn amongst his other wives, or to inform her, “Your obedience is a religious obligation”).  If she is rebellious he no longer sleeps with her (and refrains from sex with her) without saying anything further, and he shall be permitted to beat her, but not in a way so as to injure her, meaning he must not break her bones or cause her to bleed.  (It is not permitted to strike her on the face).

The authoritative Quran commentary of Ibn Kathir interprets verse 4.34 also as permission for a man to beat his disobedient wife. See the following link.

This review of the interpretations happens only in the West and this for two reasons.

Firstly, in the West it is necessary to smooth out Islam’s less palatable characteristics. More and more people are studying Islam and becoming convinced of the system’s darker, less savoury, and problematic aspects.

Secondly, “modernists” run a great risk by embarking upon such re-interpretations within Islamic nations because there is, for instance, the danger of their being accused of either insulting Islam or of apostasy. These critics won’t be long in receiving a caution along the lines of “are you questioning Allah’s wisdom when he permits men to beat their disobedient wives?”

In the meantime, we have seen that this “principle of equality” is very relative indeed.


Her use of the expression “isolated verses” is itself a smokescreen.





To explain a Quran verse, it is customary to refer to one or more relevant Hadith that illustrate the meaning of the verse. On this subject, there appear to exist sufficient Hadith that testify to the fact that husbands did beat their wives with Muhammad’s consent (either tacit or expressed).  And we are told that the Prophet himself was not loath to lay a heavy hand on, and hurt, his child-bride Aisha.

Our  comment :

This is an instance of Linda’s making chopped liver of verse 4.34 and then attempting to hide the cohesion amongst the resulting bits and pieces.

True enough, the verse does not specify whom the woman must obey. Why, oh why did Allah once again surrender the woman to the mercy of the so-called “traditionalists”? Why could he not have proclaimed unambiguously that the woman owes obedience to Him and not to her husband?

What Linda states is again correct but misleading. The verses she quotes in support clearly state that we are dealing here with obedience to Allah. The verses are general in meaning, applicable for women, men, or for specific individuals that are mentioned by name, such as Maria in verse 3.43.

Verse 4.34, however, deals exclusively with the relationship between a man and his wives and opens with the statement that men are maintainers of women and bear responsibility for them. It stands therefore to reason that we are dealing here with obedience to the husband and not with obedience to Allah.

But, nevertheless, let’s just suppose that Linda is right and that we are dealing here with obedience to Allah. We would, as a matter of course, ask ourselves the question why, in Allah’s name, a husband has to discipline his wife in three steps if she doesn’t lend her ear to Allah’s commands. Won’t she be punished by Allah Himself? Is this not a matter between Allah and herself, without her husband’s interference being needed?

One example: madame discontinues her prayers. The first step is still understandable: that is to say, monsieur decides to have a little talk with her to try to convince her that praying is important and she ought to keep up the good work. But what about the absurdity in the two next steps? Madame stops praying and, for her punishment, monsieur decides that she must sleep on her own. And if that doesn’t help, he resorts to beating her or “separating from her” (as Linda maintains).

Unless we accept that “to obey Allah” also means for a woman “to obey her husband”; then we’ve come full circle again. Most interpretations of 4.34 hence take the tack that Allah has imposed certain obligations on the woman for what concerns her relationship versus her husband and it is those obligations that he (the husband) is permitted to enforce.

"... and (as to) those on whose part you fear {nushuz}, ...
The word {nushuz} has various meanings, amongst which : antipathy, animosity, enmity, argument, discord. In the marriage context, {nushuz} may be translated as "a form of marital disharmony caused by the husband or the wife ", in short: marital problems.

Our  comment :

Here, Linda broadens the word “nushuz” to mean  “disharmony in marriage caused by the husband or the wife”. However, this is not the actual topic of the verse, which is rather precise. The verse deals with the subject of the husband who fears that his wife, not he himself is causing “disharmony”,! Hence, marital problems caused by the wife. That brings us back to the notion of “disobedience” to the husband rather than to Allah. Linda, not for the first time, refutes her own contention proposed in previous paragraphs, namely that a woman must obey Allah but does not owe obedience to her husband.

End of Part 8