It is very important to differentiate between these two things:

  1. What was recommended by Muhammad (i.e. not to beat severely, or to hit on her face)

  2. But what Muhammad stipulated as LAW (i.e. even if man beats her severely with bruises all over her body, still it is allowed in Law, and there is absolutely no punishment for men for this. Or even if he hits her on her face, still she can do nothing against this abuse. She can neither get divorce due to it, nor get any revenge, but she has to bear this abuse according to Sharia law.

Muhammad's Tactics:

Muhammad was a clever politician. He didn't want to turn Muslim women against him. Thus, when Muslim women came to him and made complaint against their beating, then Muhammad made recommendations in their favor (i.e. not to beat them, or to lightly beat them, or not to slap on the face). 

But at the same time Muhammad wanted to get the support of men much more than of women, while they were essential for fighting in the wars and getting the war booty. Thus, Muhammad always used the "Drama of Revelation", which were in favor of men. And these revelations brought exactly the opposite commands as compared to his previous recommendations. 

So, the drama continued, where:

  • Muhammad always made Recommendations in favour of women. 
  • But always Revelation came from Allah, which practically went against Muhammad's recommendation, and stipulated the LAWs which were totally in favor of men. 

Tactics of Islam Apologists:

Islam apologists are dishonest and wicked people.

They deceive people today by heavily propagating ONLY the "recommendations" of Muhammad.

But they never tell normal people about the 'revelations' through wich Muhammad stipulated all the Sharia LAWS totally in favour of men, while he wanted their support much  more than of women. 

The deadly combination of woman’s beating + a woman doesn’t have the right to divorce

We cannot understand the real misery of a woman, till the time we don’t look into the things in the right perspective. And this right perspective is the study of the deadly combination of woman’s beating, and despite this brutal beating, a woman doesn’t have the right to get her freedom through divorce, or through court, or through any other means.  

In Islam, a woman could get her freedom from a husband in the following 3 ways:

  1. Divorce:
    But a woman does not have the right to give divorce to her husband in Islam. Therefore, if the husband is beating her, then she could not get her freedom through divorce. 
  2. Khul' (خلع):
    There is a very big misunderstanding (due to the false propaganda of Islam apologists) that Islam gives the right of taking divorce to a woman in name of Khul'. But please be aware that this is not the case and even in Khul', a woman does not have the right to take divorce from her husband through any Islamic court in any way. 
    In  Khul', a woman has to offer the “ransom money” to her husband. He could accept this money and then divorce her. But if he refuses to take the ransom money, then no one (including any Islami court) could compel him to give freedom to his wife by divorcing her.
    In simple words, Khul' is not a right of a woman in Islam, but it is also a right of husband only. If he beats her, and also refuses to take the ransom money, then she is not going to get her freedom through Khul' in any Islamic court. 
    Note: Due to women's rights movements, some Islamic countries rejected the real Sharia law of Khul', and they indeed made laws which give right to the woman to take divorce from their husbands through courts (but this is not what actual Islamic Khul' is). 
    Please read our article for more details: Khul’ is not the “right” of woman, but it is still the “right” of husband to either grant it or to deny it.
  3. Faskh-e-Nikah (i.e. dissolution of marriage through an Islamic Court)
    In this case, Islamic court separates the woman from her husband. But it is limited only to some special cases (like if the husband is impotent, or if he is not paying for the food and clothes of the wife). But in the case of beating the wife (even with bruises), an Islamic court could not grant freedom to a woman from her husband through Faskh (link).
  4. The only way that a wife could get her freedom from such an abusive husband is if he breaks any part of her body. But in this case too, the wife will not get the divorce automatically, but she has to pay the "ransom money" to the husband, so that he grants her freedom through divorcing her. 

This evil combination of wife beating + wife having no right to divorce, will become completely clear to you in the Ahadith, which you will read later in this article. 

Upon which matters a man is allowed to beat his wife in Islam?

Please read this Fatwa (link), which shows the original teachings of Islam, and makes it clear that husband could beat his wife:

  • If she does not properly provide him with the sex services with her whole heart.
  • If she does not make her beautiful for him (by wearing jewelry, using perfumes, taking baths etc., so that he gets into the mood of sex). 
  • If she goes out of the house without his permission. 
  • If she does not show respect to him (for example say bad words to him).
  • If she raises her voice over his voice.
  • If she does not treat the children the way the husband wants (i.e. if she beats the children on her own, and if the husband does not like it, then he could beat her). 

In general, Sharia Law Ruling allows him to beat her in any matter, where he thinks that she is not acting according to his wishes. This thing will become clearer to you later when you read the clear Ahadith (traditions), where Sahaba were beating their wives in all matters. 

Quranic Verse about beating wife:

Quran allowed the beating of the wife and gave the argument that husbands pay for their expenses, and thus they are in charge of women, and they excel their wives by paying their expenses. 

Quran 4:34:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion (ill-treatment), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge (beat) them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

Background: How this brutal beating of wives became part of Islamic Sharia

Human rationale guides us that a divine revelation should be based upon ‘justice’.

But there is no Allah present in the heavens, and it was Muhammad himself who was making those revelations according to his political ambitions. Thus, we don’t see the colors of divine justice in the revelation, but of the ‘human mistakes’ of Muhammad and his ‘political ambitions’. 

  • Muhammad knew that he needed the support of women in order to spread his new religion. Therefore, INITIALLY when women came to him and complained against their husbands for beating them, then he forbade the husbands completely to beat them. 
  • Thus, women became emboldened, and they didn’t let their husbands beat them anymore. Upon that, men became extremely angry upon Muhammad. 
  • Later, Muhammad felt that making men angry was more dangerous for his newly invented religion, as compared to making the women angry. He needed men’s support in the wars. Therefore, this time Muhammad permitted the men to beat their wives. 
  • And the worst thing that Muhammad did, was to close all the doors for the women to get her freedom from their abusive husbands through Sharia Law Rulings. 

Please remember about the ‘divine revelation’ that it should not be based upon any ‘hit and trial Method’, in which the divine orders are changed in name of NASKH (i.e. Abrogation) according to the political ambitions of Muhammad. But the divine revelation should be able to provide complete justice to women and to provide them protection against their abusive husbands right from the beginning. You could see this injustice, and ‘Hit and Trial Method’ of human mistakes in the divine revelation in the following Hadith. 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2146:
The Messenger of Allah (initially) said: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens (i.e. the women). But then Umar came to the Messenger of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands (i.e. they don’t let their husbands beat them). Upon that, he (the Prophet) gave permission (to the husbands) to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Messenger of Allah complaining against (the beating of) their husbands. So, the Messenger of Allah said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They (i.e. these men) are not the best among you.
Saudi Sheikh Albani declared this tradition to be authentic (Sahih). 

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1985:
"The Prophet said: 'Do not beat the female slaves of Allah.' Then 'Umar came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, the women have become bold towards their husbands? So, order the beating of them,' and they were beaten. Then many women went around to the family of Muhammad. The next day he said: 'Last night seventy women came to the family of Muhammad, each woman complaining about her husband. You will not find that those (men) are the best of you.' "
Darussalam declared this hadith to be authentic (Sahih). 

Therefore, after that the male companions became emboldened, and they started beating their wives in all matters. And Muhammad’s recommendation (i.e. such husbands are not the best among you who beat their wives) was unable to stop the male companions from beating their wives, as it was merely a “recommendation”, but practically, the Sharia Law Rulings indeed allowed the men to beat them severely, as there is absolutely no punishment for the men (till they kill their wives through beating). And women were also unable to get rid of their abusive husbands through divorce or through any other means, as Muhammad blocked all those doors upon the women through the Sharia Law Ruling. 

Muslim Demand: Muhammad should be "PRAISED" for this recommendation 

Seriously?

How much credit goes to Muhammad for this recommendation (i.e. telling men that they are not good human beings if they beat their wives)?

All societies have such morals to provide some protection to the women. In fact, the so-called Kuffar of time of so-called IGNORANCE had better morals than Muhammad in protecting their women from the beating of men (You will read the testimony of 'Aisha later, where she is testifying that Muslim women were beaten more brutally than the non-Muslim women by their husbands). 

Moreover, this recommendation from Muhammad also had the political angle to it. As it were already 70 women on the verge of "rebellion" against him due to their beating. If Muhammad had not responded to it, then he would have lost the political support of women completely. And actually, even the protest of 70 women was not enough, and it took Muhammad 24 hours more (i.e. till the next day) to come out even for this small recommendation. It seems that later Muhammad's wives and other women also supported this initial rebellion of 70 women (as it is mentioned in another Hadith, which you will read later, which tells that the Muslim women used to support each other in such cases of beating against their abusive husbands). Therefore, it forced Muhammad to come out with this small recommendation, after 24 hours (i.e. the next day). 

After this flip flop policy by Muhammad, things went to that peak where some male companions of Muhammad even became extremely famous for beating their wives. 

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1480q:
وَأَبُو الْجَهْمِ مِنْهُ شِدَّةٌ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ - أَوْ يَضْرِبُ النِّسَاءَ أَوْ نَحْوَ هَذَا - وَلَكِنْ عَلَيْكِ بِأُسَامَةَ بْنِ زَيْدٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
(The Prophet told a woman Fatima bint Qais): …  Abu'l-Jahm is very harsh with women, or he beats women, or like that (so she should not marry him).

Perhaps the most famous companion for beating his wife was Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam (who was among the Top Ten highly ranked Companions). We will read about him and his brutal torture of all of his wives later in this article. 

Sharia Law Ruling: People should neither interfere and stop the husband when he is beating his wives, nor ask him why he is beating them

And then Muhammad also declared that people should neither stop the husbands when they are beating their wives, not they should ask him why he is beating them. 

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1986:
It was narrated that Ash'ath bin Qais said: "I was a guest (at the home) of 'Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed, he said to me: 'O Ash'ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah" A man should not be asked (from other people) why he is beating his wife (i.e. he made a mistake by stopping Umar from beating his wife).
Darussalam graded this Hadith to be “Hasan” (i.e. Good).
Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani declared it to be “Sahih” (i.e. Authentic). "والحديث صحيح كما قاله ابن حجر في "تنبيه الأخيار" الفتوحات الربانية 7/140." (link).

Please see that Umar Ibn Khattab was not beating his wife with the tooth cleaning twig (i.e. Miswak), but it was a brutal beating, and another person had to forcefully separate Umar from his wife. 

Ibn Qaddamah wrote about this hadith (link): 

لأنه قد يضربها لأجل الفراش – أي: امتناعها عن الجماع -، فإن أخبر بذلك استحيا، وإن أخبر بغيره كذب
(Other people should not ask a man why he beats his wife, while) it is possible that he beats her upon her refusal to do sex with him. And that man may feel ashamed to tell the real reason for the beating, so if he tells something else then it would be a lie.

And Imam al-Nawawi wrote under this hadith (link):

" فصل: يكره أن يُسأل الرجل: فيم ضرب امرأته من غير حاجة: قد روينا في أول هذا الكتاب في " حفظ اللسان " والأحاديث الصحيحة في السكوت عما لا تظهر فيه المصلحة، وذكرنا الحديث الصحيح: ( من حسن إسلام المرء تركه ما لا يعنيه ) "
It is detestable to ask a man why he is beating his wife, if it is not needed. We have collected the traditions about “Hifz Lisan” in the beginning of the book, which tell us to stay silent if the reason for anything is not apparent to us. 

This is the peak of cruelty against the woman. Muhammad not only allowed beating the wives, but also stopped other people to save her from this beating, or even to shame the husband for beating her as they are not even allowed to ask why he is beating her. 

This means, when this Talib is beating his women, then no one else is allowed to interfere in this beating, and to ask him why the poor women are being beaten by him. 

Moreover, please remember that modern Islam apologists claim that Quran claims that beating could only be done in case if she is "disloyal" to him and invites another man in the house. But look above, all this proves that wife could be beaten for refusing to provide the sex services. Those 70 female companions, who were beaten by male companions, and who were later at the verge of doing rebellion against Muhammad, were not "disloyal" to their men, and they didn't invite other men in the house. 

Note: 

Although many Islamic scholars declared this tradition to be authentic, but Islam apologists come up with this excuse that Sheikh Albani of Saudia declared this tradition to be weak. 

And we tell these Islam apologists that human rationale guides us clearly upon such contradictions that your Ilm-ul-Hadith (Science of Hadith) has no value, and you created this Ilm-ul-Hadith yourself, only in order to bend the truth, and to declare anything authentic or weak at your own, in order to save the honor of your religion. 

Not only other Islamic Scholars declared it to be authentic (as compared to Albani), but other traditions in your own book are also witness those Muslim men could beat their wives like animals, and then even to compel them to provide the sex services after that. 

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 6042:
The Prophet said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?"

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5204:
The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."

It is a witness that Muhammad himself knew that his companions were beating their wives like animals and slaves are beaten, and then compelling them to sleep with them in the later part of the day. Still, he didn’t forbid it through any Sharia Law Ruling, but at maximum, gave an “(empty) recommendation” to not to do it. Nevertheless, this recommendation was not ‘binding’ upon the husbands, and women were not able to get their freedom from such abusive Muslim husband through Islamic courts or through divorce/Khul'. 

Aisha’s witness that Sahaba (i.e. male companions) beat their wives much more brutally than even the Kuffar, but still they were not able to get freedom through the Islamic Courts

The following Hadith in Sahih Bukhari talks about one woman, who was forced to undergo the Islamic “Halala” i.e. Her first husband divorced her, but after some time they wanted to reunite. Nevertheless, Islam forces a divorced woman to marry another man first, and then get divorce again, and only then she could return to her first husband. 

But the 2nd husband didn’t want to give her freedom by divorcing her, but wanted to compel her to provide him with the sex services with whole heart. For this purpose, he used to beat her so brutally that she got a bruise on her body. Despite this heavy beating, she still had no chance to get rid of him and get her freedom. 

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5825:

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot (bruise) on her skin caused by severe beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women (i.e. even the non-Muslim men don't beat their non-believing women so brutally). Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a (i.e. the first husband)." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that `AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

This tradition is a witness that:

  • Even if a woman does not love her husband, still the husband could beat her brutally in order to compel her to provide sex service to him with whole heart.
  • And ‘Aisha is giving this testimony herself, that Muslim men used to beat their wives with much more cruelty as compared to the non-Muslims (to whom Muslims blame to be Kuffar from the Time of Ignorance). 
  • This tradition is also a witness of Muslim lies and deceptions that Islam allows only light beating of the women. No, but the Sharia Law Ruling also allows brutal beating of wives, while the “light beating” is limited only to an “recommendation". 
  • And this recommendation from Muhammad (for the light beating) proved to be "empty", and had only so much value that even the Sahaba of Muhammad (i.e. the best generation of Muslims) used to neglect this recommendation, and they kept on beating their wives much more brutally than the non-Muslims. Therefore, even if the companions of Muhammad didn’t listen to his recommendation, how then the ignorant Mullahs and ignorant Muslims of today are going to listen to the recommendation of Muhammad and ever going to spare their wives from brutal beating? 

Is it possible that even after this Torture of wives at the hands of Muslim men, any sane person could ever accept that Islam provided women their rights with “justice”?

The TRUTH is, Islam didn't provide the weak women with PROTECTION. And it is only the non-religious Secular West, which provided the women their rights with justice and protected them against any torture and beating from their abusive husbands. 

And what to talk about the non-religious West of today, even the so-called Kuffar society of the time of ignorance showed better morals than Muhammad in protecting their women against the beating and torture from their husbands. 

Muslim Excuse: 

Here some Islam apologists present the following excuse: 

The incident of beating of this woman was an “exceptional case”, while she used to tease her 2nd husband in order to compel him to divorce her. That is why the Prophet didn’t object upon the severe beating from the 2nd husband. As far as other women are concerned, then husbands could beat them only lightly. 

This excuse has no weight. 

The testimony of ‘Aisha is already present in this tradition itself, which is clear that not only this woman was beaten by her 2nd husband, but in general Sahaba (male companions) were beating the women so severely that even the Kuffar didn’t beat their women in such a brutal way. And in another hadith, 70 female companions gathered around the house of Muhammad, complaining against their Muslim husbands, for beating them severely. And in another hadith, Muhammad himself admitted that men were beating their wives like stallion camels and slaves, and then forcing them to provide the sex services later in that same night.  

If the husband breaks any part of her body, she will still not get the right to divorce automatically, but she has to pay the ransom money for her freedom

A woman has no chance to get her freedom, even if she gets the bruises on her body due to the severe beating from her husband. 

Nevertheless, if the husband breaks any part of her body during the beating (like bones etc.), still she will not get the right to divorce automatically, but she has to pay the ransom money to him for her freedom. It is known as ‘Khul (خلع) in Islam. 

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2228:
Narrated Aisha: Habibah daughter of Sahl was the wife of Thabit ibn Qays Shimmas He beat her and broke some of her part. So she came to the Prophet after morning, and complained to him against her husband. The Prophet called on Thabit ibn Qays and said (to him): Take a part of her property and separate yourself from her. He asked: Is that right, Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: I have given her two gardens of mine as a dower, and they are already in her possession. The Prophet said: Take them and separate yourself from her.
Albani declared this Hadith to be authentic.

Please see how helpless a woman is in Islam that despite such brutal beating, she has to pay ransom money to get rid of such a criminally abusive husband. 

If this poor female companion of Muhammad lived in any Secular Western Society of today, then: 

  • Not only she would have got the right to divorce automatically, 
  • but the man also had to pay her the FINE of beating her and causing her pain,
  • and he also has to go to prison for physically harming her. 

Striking on the face of wife in Islam

Islam apologists do a lot of propaganda that Islam forbade striking on the face of the wife. But they still deceive the people by hiding the complete truth, which is very ugly. And the truth is, although it is al a recommendation, but still the Sharia Islamic Law allows the husbands even to strike at the face of their women too, and neither they are able to retaliate against it, nor get a divorce from him for slapping them on their faces. 

Islam apologists deceive the people by presenting only the hadith about the "recommendation", which is an under: 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2142:
Mu'awiyah asked: Messenger of Allah, what is the right of the wife of one of us over him? He replied: That you should give her food when you eat, clothe her when you clothe yourself, do not strike her on the face, do not revile her or separate yourself from her except in the house.

Firstly, please note that Islam allows the husband to revile the wife too (along with beating), but it does not allow the wife to revile her husband in name of "respect". And this tradition is a witness to these double standards. 

Secondly, we are no more interested in the empty recommendations of so-called "light beating", but tell us what steps Muhammad took practically against the husbands when they tortured their wives with bruises and even breaking parts of their bodies? Reality is "NONE". Muhammad took not a single practical step to punish those husbands who tortured their wives. And instead of punishing such abusive husbands, Muhammad compelled the women to still pay the "ransom money" to such abusive husbands, in order to get their freedom.

Thirdly, as compared to this recommendation, the Islamic Sharia Law still allows the men to slap directly on the faces of their wives, and still, they will get neither any punishment, nor women will get the right to get their freedom from them. 

Islam apologists deceive the people by hiding the following traditions, and the exact Sharia Law Ruling on this matter:

Imam Suyuti recorded the following traditions in his Tafsir Dur-e-Manthur, regarding slapping on the face of wife (link): 

عن الحسن قال " جاءت امرأة إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تستعدي على زوجها أنه لطمها. فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: القصاص... فأنزل الله { الرجال قوامون على النساء... } الآية. فرجعت بغير قصاص ".
Hassan Basri said:
A woman came to prophet Muhammad and she wanted to take revenge for the cruelty of her husband who slapped her. Upon that Muhammad ordered the "Qasas" (i.e. retaliation in form of eye for an eye). But Allah revealed upon the verse 4:34 (Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means). After that prophet Muhammad returned the woman without the Qasas.
(In other traditions Ibn Juraij and Saddi reported the similar)

Imam Suyuti further recorded this same incident from Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who also made it clear that it is a rule that man could beat her in order to teach her the so-called "respect" (link):

 عن علي قال " أتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم رجل من الأنصار بامرأة له فقالت: يا رسول الله إن زوجها فلان ابن فلان الأنصاري، وأنه ضربها فأثر في وجهها، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس له ذلك. فأنزل الله { الرجال قوّامون على النساء بما فضل الله بعضهم على بعض } أي قوامون على النساء في الأدب. فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أردت أمراً وأراد الله غيره ".
Ali Ibn Abi Talib said:
An Ansari woman came to the prophet and told him that her husband slapped her. The Prophet said that he didn’t have the right to slap her. Upon that Allah revealed this verse 4:34 (Men are protectors and maintainers of women …). It means that men have the right (to slap them) in order to teach the women “RESPECT”.
(Mujahid reported similar in another tradition to what Ali said)

Imam Suyuti further recorded from Zuhri, who made it clear that except for the loss of life of wife due to the beating, no Qasas could be taken from the husband from remaining forms of beating i.e. bruises, or breaking of any part of her body. And Islam gave all these "one-sided" rights of torture and brutal beating in name of teaching the so-called "respect" to the wives(link): 

وأخرج ابن جرير وابن المنذر عن الزهري قال: لا تقص المرأة من زوجها إلا في النفس
Zuhri said: 
There is no Qasas (retaliation in the form of eye for an eye) for a wife, except in case she loses her life (due to the beating).

Of course, Muhammad could have never allowed any punishment for the husbands in Qasas, while he needed the support of men in the wars, and thus, it was going against his political motives. But at the same time, he didn't want to make the women angry too, as it would have also been against his political agenda. Thus, he made the revelation at the spot, which was prohibiting any punishment for the husbands. And he satisfied the women by telling them that he (personally) wanted to punish the husbands in Qasas, but Allah did not allow him. This revelation was an ultimate weapon in the hands of Muhammad, through which he achieved all his political and personal goals easily. 

Wives are like "prisoners" in the hands of their husbands

Do you remember the hadith of Bukhari (which we quoted above), and which tells male companions used to beat their wives like slaves and the stallion camel? Here another tradition, where Muhammad explicitly claiming that wives are indeed like the "prisoners" in the hands of their husbands:

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1851:
... Then he (the prophet) said: 'I enjoin good treatment of women, for they are prisoners with you, and you have no right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit clear indecency. If they do that, then forsake them in their beds and hit them, but without causing injury or leaving a mark ...
Grade: Sahih (authentic)

This is the exact reality of Islam, where Muhammad considered wives as "prisoners", where they don't have their own freewill but they have to follow the wishes of their husbands, where women have no control over their own bodies but their husbands control their bodies too. 

Of course, all societies have some morals where they make such recommendations to behave good with prisoners and slaves too, but such recommendations do not change the original status of the prisoners and the slaves. Same is true with the women in Islam, and they are like prisoners of their husbands, and despite some recommendations from Muhammad for treating them good, still it does not change their original status of being like prisoners. 

PS:
A wife is like a "prisoner", but even worse is the fact that the children are like "property" of father in Islam. And therefore, even if a Muslim father kills his son/daughter, still this father will not be killed in Qasas (link). Similarly, a slave is also a "property" of the Muslim owner, and this owner will not be killed in Qasas if he kills his slave (link). 

Muslim women have to ask this question from themselves:

  • If you were at the place of Allah, and if you had to make the laws, would then you make a law which would have made it permissible for the husbands to beat their wives? 
  • Could such a thing be considered a divine being, who makes such unjust laws against the weak woman?
  • Don't you feel that such unjust laws against the women is not made by any divine being, but there is a "man" sitting behind such laws, who has this mentality that indeed women are inferior than men, and they are there only in order to serve the wishes of men?
  • This so-called divine being (i.e. Allah or Muhammad himself) considers that women are deficient in intelligence than men, and women don't have enough brain to even understand what "respect" is, and husbands have to beat the women in order to make them understand this respect. 

Humanity within us is enough to guide us in choosing the right path. 

Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam (Top Ranked Sahabi) beating and torturing his wives brutally:

Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam was one among the 10 Top ranked companions of Muhammad, whom Muhammad promised the paradise. Nevertheless, despite this high status, he still tortured all of his wives very brutally. 

Saudi Fatwa website Islam Q&A recorded the following authentic tradition about him (link):

وروى ابن سعد في "الطبقات" (8/ 197) بسند صحيح عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ:  " أَنَّ أَسْمَاءَ بِنْتَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ كَانَتْ تَحْتَ الزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ الْعَوَّامِ. وَكَانَ شَدِيدًا عَلَيْهَا، فَأَتَتْ أَبَاهَا فَشَكَتْ ذَلِكَ إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ: " يَا بُنَيَّةُ اصْبِرِي فَإِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ إِذَا كَانَ لَهَا زَوْجٌ صَالِحٌ ثُمَّ مَاتَ عَنْهَا فَلَمْ تَزَوَّجْ بَعْدَهُ ، جُمِعَ بَيْنَهُمَا فِي الْجَنَّةِ ".
"Akrama narrated that Asma bint Abi Bakr was the wife of al-Zubair bin al-Awam and he was too tough with her, she therefore went to her father to complain, he (Abu Bakr) said: 'O daughter, you should observe patience, surely if a woman has a pious man who dies before her and she never remarries after him, both shall be gathered in heaven".

Imam Qurtabi recorded the following tradition in his commentary of Quran under the verse 4:34 (link):

ابن وهبٍ عن مالك أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر الصدّيق ٱمرأةَ الزبير بن العوّام كانت تخرج حتى عوتب في ذلك. قال: وعتب عليها وعلى ضَرّتها، فعقد شعر واحدة بالأُخرى ثم ضربهما ضرباً شديداً، وكانت الضرّة أحسن ٱتقاء، وكانت أسماء لا تتّقي فكان الضرب بها أكثر فشكَتْ إلى أبيها أبي بكر رضي الله عنه فقال لها: أيّ بُنيّة ٱصبِري فإن الزّبير رجل صالح، ولعلّه أن يكون زوجَك في الجنة ولقد بلغني أن الرجل إذا ٱبتكر بٱمرأة تزوّجها في الجنة.
Ibn Wahab narrated from Imam Malik that Asma binte Abi Bakr (sister of 'Aisha) was one of the wife of Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam. She used to go out, till she was punished. Zubayr punished her along with one of his another wife. He tied both of them with each other with their hair, and beat them severely. Asma's co-wife tried a lot to save her from the beating, while Asma didn't try to save her. Therefore, Asma got a lot of beating. Then Asma complaint to her father Abu Bakr against her husband Zubayr. But Abu Bakr told her to show patience, as Zubayr is a pious man, and perhaps he will also be her husband in the paradise. 

Saudi Fatwa website Islam Q&A also recorded the follwing authentic (Sahih) tradition about Zubayr (link):

فروى الطبري في "تهذيب الآثار" (1/414) بسند صحيح عن فاطمة بنت المنذر عن أسماء بنت أبي بكر قالت : " كنت رابع أربع نسوة تحت الزبير ، فكان إذا عَتِبَ على إحدانا ، فكَّ عودا من عيدان المِشْجَب، فضربها به حتى يكسره عليها ".
al-Tabari recorded in his book "Tehdhib al-Athar" from an authentic chain of narration from Fatima, who from Asma binte Abi Bakr, who said: I was one among the fourt wives of Zubayr. Whenever he reprimanded one of us, he would break off a branch from the wooden clothes hangers and beat her with it until he broke it over her.

One of Zubayr's wives was Umm Kulthum, who had to trick him in order to get the divorce (link):

She then married Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, with whom she had a tough relationship because of his strict and somewhat violent nature. She asked him for a divorce, but he refused. So "she pestered him while he was doing wudu for the prayer, and he divorced her with a single divorce. Then she left." Zubayr afterwards complained, "She tricked me, may Allah trick her!" Prophet Muhammad advised him to "propose to her again," but Zubayr knew that Umm Kulthum probably might not return to him (Reference: Muhammad ibn Saad. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir vol. 8. Translated by Bewley).

And a woman, named Atiqa, married Zubayr only on the condition that he will not beat her (link):

After Umar's death, Atiqa married Zubayr ibn al-Awwam. She made it a condition of their marriage contract that he would not beat her, that he would continue to permit her to visit the mosque at will and that he would not withhold "any of her rights". (Reference: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. Al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba vol. 8 #11448)

Muslim Apologists: Quran allows beating wife only if she became disloyal

Muslim apologists come with this excuse (link):

Many Muslims translate the word “idribuhunna” (which is the command form of “daraba”) as “beat them”. But that is not the right meaning of the word.
The verse says:
[4:34] “Men are the maintainers of women by means of what God has favored some over the others, and through what they spend of their money. The righteous women accept this willingly and they guard the secrets as God has guarded it. As for the women from whom you fear ‘nushuz' (disloyalty), you shall advise them, desert them in bed and ‘idribuhunna' (separate from them).”
Verse 4:34 talks about what to do in the case of a woman's “nushuz” towards their husbands, which many people commonly translate as rebellion or disobedience. But if it were so, then this implies the man is in charge in the relationship. However, verse 4:128 talks about a husband's “nushuz” towards his wife. This implies the wife is in charge, not the husband. Sooo… which is it? If one sex is supposed to have power over the other, then both cannot be doing the disobedience or rebellion. However, the only other meaning for this word is disloyalty, and that is the meaning that makes more sense in this situation.
Bearing this in mind, we must look at the multiple meanings for the word “daraba” in the Quran and see what fits:
The meanings for “daraba” as found in the Quran: To go out or travel (3:156, 4:101), strike or beat (2:60-61, 3:112, 47:4), to present an example (43:57, 30:28, 13:17), to withdraw or separate (43:5), to seal or cover (18:11), to draw over (24:31), to attribute (43:17), to establish (57:13).
Verse 4:34 talks about what happens in the case of a wife’s disloyalty towards her husband. The only two that would fit and make sense semantically in this case would be to beat them, or to separate from them. But aggression is forbidden in 2:190 and 5:87, so beating is cancelled, therefore it cannot mean to beat them.

Answer:

This is another deception by Muslims that they translate نشوز (Nashuz) as "disloyalty". From this, they claim that a husband could beat his wife only if she is showing disloyalty towards him.

Contrary to this deception, the real meaning of "nashuz" is "ill treatment". And a Muslim husband is allowed to beat his wife in every matter where he believes that his wife is showing ill treatment.

This same word is also used for husbands too in verse 4:128-129.

وَإِنِ ٱمْرَأَةٌ خَافَتْ مِنۢ بَعْلِهَا نُشُوزًا أَوْ إِعْرَاضًا فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَآ أَن يُصْلِحَا بَيْنَهُمَا صُلْحًا ۚ وَٱلصُّلْحُ خَيْرٌ ۗ وَأُحْضِرَتِ ٱلْأَنفُسُ ٱلشُّحَّ ۚ وَإِن تُحْسِنُوا۟ وَتَتَّقُوا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُوٓا۟ أَن تَعْدِلُوا۟ بَيْنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ ۖ فَلَا تَمِيلُوا۟ كُلَّ ٱلْمَيْلِ فَتَذَرُوهَا كَٱلْمُعَلَّقَةِ ۚ

If a woman feareth ill treatment (نُشُوزًا) from her husband, or desertion ( إِعْرَاضًا), it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace between themselves. Peace is better. But greed hath been made present in the minds (of men). If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do. Ye will not be able to deal equally (i.e. to do ADL تَعْدِلُوا۟) between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. (Pickthal)

Therefore, Muslim apologists have no chance to deceive people and translate "nashuz" as "disloyalty", but it means 'ill-treatment'. 

Muslim Deception: "idribuhunna" means only "to separate" (and not beating the wife)

Please see this article. https://link.medium.com/hrI3LW4jJob (and this article too)

This article highlights every instance in the Qur'an where the root verb "daraba" aka "beat" is meant to be interpreted literally vs. figuratively.

In every instance where the Qur'an has written "daraba" to mean figuratively, the word is always used with a preposition like "in" and "to/for", or an adverb to convey similitude or disputation.

In every instance where "daraba" in the Qur'an is to be interpreted literally, the verse is without preposition or adverb. This is the case with 4:34. There is no adverb or preposition in that verse. So "daraba" is meant to be interpreted literally—literally beat/hit/strike your wife.

All tons of Ahadith (which have been posted above) are a witness of the beating of wives. How can Islam apologists neglect these tons of Ahadith and come up with their own deception of changing the meaning of word "daraba" on their own?

Double Standards of Islam:

Please also note another double standard of Islam.
  • When a wife shows 'ill treatment' then the husband is allowed to beat his wife.

  • But when a husband shows 'ill treatment', then Islam is demanding from the poor wife to give away some of her 'rights' in name of making 'settlement'.

Moreover, previously when Muhammad allowed the men to marry 2 or 3 or 4 wives, then he also put the condition of doing Justice (Arabic: عدل 'ADL) with all of them. Please see verse 4:3.

Nevertheless, Muhammad was cunning and he "ABROGATED" that condition of Justice ('ADL عدل) later in this verse 4.129, by telling men that they don't have the "ability" to do Justice (i.e. ADL تَعْدِلُوا۟) between their wives, and thus they could demand their wives to give up some of their rights in name of "settlement".

This then became a license in the hands of husbands to blackmail their wives and to compel them to dance according to the wishes of their husbands.

Muhammad himself threatened old lady Hafsa from giving her DIVORCE 'without' any reason. Poor old Hafsa didn't know what to do and where to go after divorce in that old age. She went to house of 'Aisha and she was crying, and she offered Muhammad that she would give her turn to young 'Aisha, but he should not divorce her. And Muhammad agreed immediately, and at that time this verse was revealed.

 

***

Please don't forget the Bigger Picture: 

How a woman get her freedom from an Abusive unwanted Husband
The Western World Islam

Western women have to suffer ZERO unjust Hardships. 

Muslim women have to suffer from the following 11 (Eleven) unjust HARDSHIPS. Muhammad copied these Sharia Rulings from the pre-Islamic ignorant Arab culture.

  1. Liaan اللعان
  2. ‘Iddah
  3. Khul’ خلع
  4. Faskh فسخ
  5. Halala (Tahleel Marriage نكاح التحليل) 
  6. Ila (الإيلاء)
  7. Zihar
  8. The process of 3 Talaqs in Islam is again UNJUST towards the women
  9. Wife BEATING (i.e. even if husband beats her brutally with bruises, still she doesn't have the right to get separation)
  10. If a husband does not do intercourse with wife for several year (in order to tease her), even then she cannot get her freedom through divorce
  11. Sharia Ruling: If a divorced woman remarries, then she will lose the custody of her children

Moreover:

  • Contrary to women, Muslim men don't have to face a SINGLE of such one-sided & unjust HARDSHIP. 
  • In fact, it is much easier for a Muslim man to get rid of his wife as compared to a Western man. He does not even have to go to the court, but only to say 3 times Talaq, and that is all.