Women in Islam

Summary

Islamic preachers claim:

Wife beating is not allowed in Islam under any circumstances, except in cases of disloyalty.
Husbands cannot beat their wives directly. They must follow a three-step process:
- First, offer advice to the wife.
- Second, separate their beds.
- Only in the third and final step are they allowed to beat their wives.
Moreover, this beating must be very mild (e.g., using a Miswak, a small tooth-cleaning stick about 6 inches long).

Islamic preachers use the following verse as their proof.

Quran 4:34:

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتُ قَٰنِتَٰتٌ حَٰفِظَٰتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

(Dishonest Translation by Islamic Preaches):

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear disloyalty- [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], beat them [lightly]. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

But all these claims by Islamic apologists are false and nothing more than lies they fabricated themselves. They were caught red-handed while:

Muhammad was considered the best person (according to Islam) to understand the verses of the Quran.
Muhammad never interpreted this verse in the way modern Islamic apologists do.
Muhammad permitted his male companions to beat their wives brutally, even causing bruises all over their bodies. 'Aisha testified in Sahih Bukhari that the male companions of Muhammad beat their wives more brutally than Kafir men.
Muhammad also allowed his male companions to slap their wives.
Muhammad allowed his companions to beat their wives in every matter of life under the guise of discipline.
Some of Muhammad's male companions became notorious for their wife-beating.
Muhammad did not grant women the right to divorce if their abusive husbands beat them. Only if a bone or another part of their body was broken did Muhammad permit Khul' (خلع), which still required the woman to pay additional ransom money to her abusive husband to obtain a divorce.

This is how Muhammad himself understood the verse on beating wives. Islamic apologists have no grounds to challenge Muhammad's interpretation of this verse.

Moreover, it is crucial to distinguish between these two aspects:

What Muhammad recommended (i.e., not to beat wives severely or to slap them on the face).
What Muhammad stipulated as law (i.e., even if a man beats her severely, leaving bruises all over her body, this is still legally permissible with no punishment for the man. Similarly, if he slaps her in the face, she has no recourse against this abuse. She cannot obtain a divorce due to such treatment, nor seek any form of retribution; she must endure this abuse for the rest of her life according to Sharia law).

Muhammad's Strategy:

Muhammad was a shrewd politician. He aimed to avoid alienating Muslim women. When women approached him with complaints about being beaten, he issued ruling in their favor (i.e. prohibiting husbands to beat their wives or to slap them in the face). However, Muhammad also sought the support of men, who were crucial for warfare and obtaining war booty.

Thus, Muhammad employed the following tactics to balance the interests of both groups:

- Firstly, when women approached him, he provided a ruling in their favor.
- But later, when his male companions came to him, Muhammad claimed that Allah revealed new verses abrogating the earlier ruling, thus allowing men to beat and slap their wives.

Table of Contents:

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

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

Please read this Fatwa (link), which outlines the original teachings of Islam and clarifies that a husband can beat his wife under the following circumstances:

If she does not provide sexual services to him wholeheartedly.
If she does not make herself attractive for him (e.g., by wearing jewelry, using perfumes, or bathing to arouse his interest).
If she leaves the house without his permission.
If she fails to show him respect (e.g., by speaking disrespectfully).
If she raises her voice over his.
If she does not treat the children in the way he prefers (e.g., if she disciplines the children in a manner he disapproves of, he can beat her).

In general, Sharia Law permits a husband to beat his wife for any reason he deems fit if she is not conforming to his wishes (similar to the treatment of slaves, as a wife is expected to follow her husband's desires in Islam). This will become clearer as you review the Ahadith (traditions) and see how the male companions of Muhammad behaved towards their wives.

Background: How Did Brutal Beating of Wives Become Part of Islamic Sharia?

Human reason tells us that divine revelations should embody ‘justice’.

However, no divine entity exists in the heavens; rather, it was Muhammad who crafted these revelations according to his political ambitions. Thus, we observe not divine justice, but the ‘human errors’ of Muhammad and his ‘political motives’ in these revelations.

Initially, Muhammad understood that he needed women’s support to propagate his new religion. Therefore, when women came to him with complaints about their husbands beating them, he initially prohibited such actions entirely. This led to women becoming more assertive and resisting abuse, which angered men significantly.

Realizing that incurring men’s anger was more dangerous to his fledgling religion than angering women, Muhammad reversed his stance and allowed men to beat their wives. Moreover, Muhammad closed all avenues for women to escape from abusive husbands through divorce or any other means.

It is crucial to understand that divine revelation should not be subject to a ‘trial and error’ approach, where divine commands are altered under the guise of Naskh (abrogation) to suit Muhammad’s political goals. True divine revelation should ensure justice and protection for women from the outset.

The following Hadiths illustrate the trial-and-error approach of Muhammad’s revelations:

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.

Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1985:

"The Prophet said: 'Do not beat the female slaves of Allah (i.e. women).' 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.' "

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

As a result, male companions became emboldened and began beating their wives severely in all matters. Muhammad’s recommendation (that such husbands are not the best among you) failed to deter them as it was merely a “recommendation” and not legally binding. Practically, Sharia Law permitted severe beatings, with no legal repercussions for men. Women were also unable to escape abusive marriages through divorce or other means, as Muhammad had blocked those avenues through Sharia law.

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

Seriously?

How much credit does Muhammad deserve for merely recommending that men who beat their wives are not good human beings?

All societies have some form of moral code to protect women. In fact, the so-called Kuffar from the so-called era of IGNORANCE had better morals in protecting their women from being beaten by men. You will read 'Aisha's testimony later, where she states that Muslim women were beaten more brutally by their husbands than non-Muslim women were by their Kafir husbands.

Moreover, Muhammad's recommendation also had a political angle. Seventy women were already on the verge of rebellion against him due to being beaten. If Muhammad hadn't responded, he would have lost the political support of women entirely. Even the protest of these 70 women wasn't enough to prompt an immediate response; it took Muhammad another 24 hours (until the next day) to issue this small recommendation. It seems that Muhammad's wives and other women later supported this initial rebellion, as mentioned in another Hadith you'll read later, which tells how Muslim women used to support each other against their abusive husbands. This forced Muhammad to make the small recommendation after 24 hours.

After this inconsistent policy by Muhammad, things escalated to the point where some of Muhammad's male companions even became notorious 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 nutorious 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 the brutal torture of all of his wives later in this article.

Sharia Law Ruling: People should neither interfere nor question a husband when he is beating his wife.

Additionally, Muhammad declared that people should not stop a husband from beating his wife, nor should they ask him why he is doing so.

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).

Islamic apologists decieve people by telling them that Islam allows to beat their wives only lightly with tooth-cleaning twig (i.e. Miswak). Please see how Umar Ibn Khattab was not beating his wife with the tooth-cleaning twig, 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 represents the height of cruelty against women. Muhammad not only permitted the beating of a wife but also prohibited others from intervening or even shaming the husband for it. People were not even allowed to ask why he was beating her. 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

This means that when this Talib (a member of the Taliban in Afghanistan) in the above photo was beating his wives, no one was permitted to interfere or question him about the reasons for the beating.

Additionally, modern Islamic preachers claim that the Quran states a beating is only permissible if a wife is "disloyal" and invites another man into the house. However, as seen above, a wife can be beaten for refusing to provide sex services. The 70 female companions, who were beaten by their husbands and were on the verge of rebellion against Muhammad were not "disloyal" and did not invite other men into their homes. Instead, they were beaten because Islam generally permits husbands to beat their wives for every matter.

Note:

Although Islamic scholars have declared this tradition to be authentic, some Islamic preachers argue that Sheikh Albani of Saudi Arabia considered it weak.

We respond to these preachers by pointing out that human rationale clearly reveals the contradictions within your Ilm-ul-Hadith (Science of Hadith). This field, which you created yourself later, it was only designed to manipulate the truth, allowing you to arbitrarily declare any tradition as authentic or weak to protect the honor of your religion.

Not only have other Islamic scholars affirmed its authenticity (in contrast to Albani's view), but additional traditions in your own books also testify that Muslim men could beat their wives like animals and still compel them to provide sex services afterward.

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?"

And:

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 evident that Muhammad was aware that his companions were beating their wives like animals and slaves, then compelling them to sleep with them later in the day. Despite this knowledge, he did not prohibit this behavior through any Sharia Law ruling. At most, he issued an “(empty) recommendation” not to do it. However, this recommendation was not binding on the husbands, and women were unable to gain freedom from such abusive Muslim husbands through Islamic courts or divorce/Khul'.

Aisha witnessed that the male companions used to beat their wives far more brutally than even the Kuffar husbands

The following Hadith in Sahih Bukhari describes a woman who was forced to undergo the Islamic practice of "Halala." Her first husband divorced her, but they later wanted to reunite. However, Islam requires a divorced woman to marry another man and then be divorced by him before she can return to her first husband.

The second husband, unwilling to divorce her and give her freedom, compelled her to provide him with sex services by beating her so brutally that she was bruised. Despite this severe abuse, she had no means to escape and regain 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 serves as evidence that:

Even if a woman does not love her husband, the husband can still beat her brutally to force her to provide sex services with complete compliance.
'Aisha herself testifies that Muslim men used to beat their wives with far greater cruelty than non-Muslims (whom Muslims label as Kuffar from the Time of Ignorance).
This tradition also exposes the lies and deceptions surrounding the claim that Islam permits only light beating of women. In reality, Sharia Law permits severe beating of wives, with the "light beating" merely being a “recommendation.”
Muhammad's recommendation for light beating proved to be "empty" and had so little impact that even Muhammad's companions (the so-called best generation of Muslims) disregarded it, continuing to beat their wives far more brutally than non-Muslims. If Muhammad's companions ignored his recommendation, how can we expect today’s ignorant Mullahs and Muslims to heed it and spare their wives from brutal beatings?

Is it possible that, despite this torture of wives by Muslim men, any rational person could believe that Islam provided women with their rights and justice?

The TRUTH is, Islam did not provide protection for vulnerable women. It is only the secular, non-religious West that has ensured women’s rights to justice and protection from abuse and beating by their husbands.

And what to talk about the non-religious West today, even the so-called Kuffar society from the Time of Ignorance demonstrated better morals than Muhammad in protecting women from beatings and torture by their husbands.

Excuse by Islamic Apologists:

An Islamic apologist claimed:

The incident of the woman being beaten was an "exceptional case" because she used to provoke her second husband to force him to divorce her. That’s why the Prophet did not object to the severe beating from the second husband. For other women, husbands are only permitted to administer light beatings.

This excuse lacks credibility.

The testimony of 'Aisha, as presented in the same tradition, shows that not only was this woman beaten by her second husband, but, in general, the Sahaba (male companions) were inflicting such severe beatings on women that even the Kuffar did not treat their women so brutally. Furthermore, another hadith recounts that 70 female companions gathered around Muhammad's house, complaining about being beaten severely by their Muslim husbands. Additionally, Muhammad himself acknowledged that men were beating their wives like animals and slaves, and then compelling them to provide sex services later that same night.

If a husband breaks any part of her body, she still does not automatically gain the right to a divorce; instead, she must pay a ransom for her freedom

A woman cannot gain her freedom, even if she suffers bruises from severe beating by her husband.

But if the beating was so severe that it broke any part of her body, then she gets a chance to ger her freedom from such an abusive husband. Howoever, this seperation also does not happen automatically, but she must pay a ransom money to her husband, known as ‘Khul’ (خلع) in Islam, to secure her freedom.

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: despite enduring brutal beating, she must still pay a ransom to escape an abusive husband.

Had this unfortunate female companion of Muhammad lived in a modern secular Western society, she would have:

- Automatically obtained the right to a divorce,
- Received compensation for the pain and suffering inflicted upon her,
- And the abuser would have faced imprisonment for physically harming her.

Slapping the Face of a Wife in Islam

Islamic preachers often propagate that Islam forbids slapping a wife on the face. However, they often conceal the complete truth. While it is recommended not to slap the face, Sharia Law still permits husbands to do so. Women are neither able to retaliate against it nor obtain a divorce solely for being slapped on the face.

Islamic preachers mislead people by presenting only the hadith about the "recommendation," which is as follows:

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, it is important to note that Islam allows husbands to revile their wives (along with beating them), but it does not permit wives to revile their husbands in the name of "respect." This tradition highlights these double standards.

Secondly, despite the recommendation against it, Islamic Sharia Law still permits men to slap their wives on the face without any punishment. Moreover, women do not have the right to seek freedom from their husbands due to this abuse.

Islamic preachers often mislead people by concealing 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 the face of a 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 also documented this incident from Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who clarified that it is permissible for a man to beat his wife to enforce what is considered "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 also recorded from Zuhri, who clarified that, except in cases where the wife loses her life due to the beating, no Qasas (retaliatory punishment) could be taken from the husband for other forms of beating, such as bruises or broken bones. Islam granted these "one-sided" rights of torture and brutal beating to husbands in the name of teaching the so-called "respect" to their 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 beating).

Of course, Muhammad could never allow any punishment for husbands under Qasas (retaliation), as he needed the support of men for wars, which aligned with his political motives. At the same time, he didn't want to anger the women, as that would also conflict with his political agenda. Thus, he made a revelation on the spot that prohibited any punishment for husbands. He appeased the women by telling them that he personally wished to punish the husbands under Qasas, but Allah did not permit it. Revelation was an ultimate weapon in Muhammad's hands, through which he easily achieved all his political and personal goals.

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

Remember the Hadith from Bukhari (quoted above), which describes how male companions beat their wives like slaves and stallion camels? Here is another tradition where Muhammad explicitly claims that wives are indeed like "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)

Moreover, Umar Ibn Khattab said that Marriage is slavery, so be careful about whom you give your daughter for enslavement (link):

حدثنا محمد، ثنا محمد بن معاوية، قال: نا ابن لهيعة، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بن نوفل، عن عروة بن الزبير قال: قالت لنا أسماء بنت أبي بكر: يا بَنِيَّ وبَني بَنِيَّ، إن هذا النكاح رِقّ،فلينظر أحدكم عند من يُرِقّ كريمته .

Asma bint Abi Bakr (a woman btw) said “ Oh my children and grand children (or son and son of son); Marriage is slavery, so be careful with regard to whom you give your daughter for enslavement.”

[Ref: Sunan sa`eed ibn Mansoor ( Printed versio n 1/149 ; H: 591 ) with the tahkeeq of shaykh al-`Adhami. Imam ibn Taymiyyah attributed this to `umar ibn al-Khattab as well in Fatawa al-Kubra (3/148); Al-Bayhaqi narrated this as well in his Sunan al-Kubra 7/82 and said that this is also narrated marfoo`an but mawqoof is the one that is correct]

This is the exact reality of Islam, where Muhammad considered wives as "prisoners/slaves." They don't have their own free will but must follow the wishes of their husbands, having no control over their bodies, which are also controlled by their husbands.

Of course, all societies have morals where they recommend treating prisoners and slaves well, but such recommendations do not change the original status of prisoners and slaves. The same is true for women in Islam. They are like prisoners of their husbands, and despite some recommendations from Muhammad to treat them well, it does not change their original status as prisoners.

PS:

A wife is like a "prisoner," but even worse is the fact that children are considered the "property" of the father in Islam. Therefore, even if a Muslim father kills his son or daughter, he will not face the death penalty under Qasas (link). Similarly, a slave is also the "property" of the Muslim owner, and this owner will not be killed in Qasas if he kills his slave (link).

Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam (6) used to beat and torture his wives brutally:

Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam, one of the top 10 companions of Muhammad who was promised paradise by Muhammad, still brutally tortured all of his wives despite his esteemed status.

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 following 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 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)

A husband is even allowed to beat his wife with a Rope or a Whip

According to Imam Malik, a husband is even allowed to beat his wife with a rope or a whip, till the time he does not break any part of her body. However, if he unintentionally breaks any part of her body, no retaliation would be made against the husband.

Muwatta Imam Malik, Book 43, Hadith 15:

Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him."

The Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1116 CE) allowed a husband to give his wife up to three lashes with a whip [Reference: Jonathan A. C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, p. 280-81]

The Hanafi jurist Ibn al Numan (d. 1457 CE) set a limit of ten lashes. [Reference: Ayesha Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 106]

Muslim women should ask themselves these questions

If you were in Allah's place and had to make the laws, would you permit husbands to beat their wives?
Can a divine being be considered just if they make such laws against women?
Do you not feel that such unjust laws against women are not from a divine source but from a "man" who believes women are inferior and exist only to serve men?

This so-called divine being (Allah or Muhammad himself) believes women are less intelligent than men and need to be beaten to understand "respect."

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

Muhammad struck Aisha and the tampering of English hadith translations

(Taken from WikiIslam.Net)

While some modern voices have denied that the Qur'an instructs wife-beating, alleging that Quran 4:34 has been misinterpreted, those who admit the Islamic tradition have noted that there exist in the hadiths numerous examples, from a variety of hadith narrators and collectors, of Muhammad ordaining wife-beating and confirming the original meaning of the verse found in the Quran, though with limitations added. There are, for instance, multiple hadiths in which Muhammad's companions beat or strike women (sometimes in his presence), as well as some, albeit conflicting evidence narrated from his wife, Aisha, regarding whether Muhammad himself used physical force against the women in his life. The best examples, perhaps, of hadiths permitting wife-beating are those in which Muhammad explicitly attempts to moderate wife-beating while nonetheless permitting it, as these have frequently been cited by dissenting modern voices and apologists themselves.

In one account found in the hadith collections, including the authoritative Sahih Muslim, Muhammad causes his wife Aisha physical pain by striking her in the chest. The Arabic word translated "He struck me" (فَلَهَدَنِي) is lahada , which means 'he pushed violently' or 'he struck her chest'^[4], and the word translated caused me pain (أَوْجَعَتْنِي) is awja'a meaning 'He, or it, pained him; or caused him pain, or aching'^[5]. It is important to note that the popular hadith website Sunnah.com, drastically altered this phrase from the original translations they used for the Sahih Muslim and Sunan al-Nasa'i collections, presumably to present Muhammad and Islam in a more positive light, changing it in both cases to "He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt" - for this reason, the words provided here have been restored to the original translation of Siddique. These are what the translations say:

Sahih Muslim Book 4, 2127 (Abdul Hamid Siddiqui; Sunnah.com's source translation): He said, Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said, Yes. He struck me in the chest which caused me pain, and then said, Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?

Sahih Muslim 974b (Dar-us-Salam edition translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab, Vol. 2 p.506): He said: "so you were the person that I saw in front of me?" I said: "Yes." He gave me a painful shove on the chest, then he said: "Did you think that Allah and His Messenger would be unjust to you?"

Sunan al-Nasa'i 2039 (Dar-us-Salam edition, Vol. 3, p.127, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab; Sunnah.com's source translation which they altered in the same way as they did for Sahih Muslim): He said: 'So you were the black shape that I saw in front of me?' I said, 'Yes.' He struck me on the chest, which caused we pain, then he said: 'Did you think Allah and His Messenger would deal unjustly with you?'

Sahih Muslim 4:2127:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

By contrast, there exists a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud graded sahih by al-Albani which reports Aisha saying that Muhammad never hit (daraba) a woman. While it is not at all uncommon to find contradictions in the hadith literature, Aisha here may have either generously or inadvertently disregarded the time when Muhammad pushed / struck her painfully in the chest, as reported in the Sahih Muslim hadith above, assuming both are authentic (as Islamic scholars hold them to be).

Sunan Abu Dawud 4768 (Ahmad Hasan Ref):`A’isha said: the Messenger of Allah (saws) never struck a servant or a woman.

Muslim Apologists: The Quran allows beating a wife only if she becomes disloyal

Modern Islamic apologists deny that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives. Regarding the verse 4:34, they DISTORT the translation, and come up with these claims:

The verse 4:34 is not applicable in general cases of "disobedience", but ONLY in the case if a wife becomes "Disloyal".
And the verse 4:34 does not ask to "beat" them, but to "separate from them".

One of them presented the following 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).”...
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.

Response:

This is another deception by Muslims that they translate نشوز (Nashuz) as "disloyalty".

Contrary to this deception, the real meaning of "nashuz" is "ill-treatment or disobedience". 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 fears either ill-treatment (نُشُوزًا) or aversion ( إِعْرَاضًا) from her husband it is not wrong for the husband and wife to bring about reconciliation among themselves (by compromising on their rights), for settlement is better. Man's soul is always prone to selfishness, but if you do good and are God-fearing, then surely Allah is aware of the things you do. You will not be able to treat your wives with absolute justice (i.e. to do ADL تَعْدِلُوا۟) not even when you keenly desire to do so. (It suffices in order to follow the Law of Allah that) you incline not wholly to one, leaving the other in suspense. If you act rightly and remain God-fearing, surely Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (Maududi)

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

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.' "

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

So, those seventy women (i.e. female companions of Muhammad) were not "disloyal" to their husbands and they were not involved in adultery. But Muhammad allowed his male companions to beat them in every matter.

Thus, it is a challenge to Islamic preachers to refute the understanding of their Prophet, who never understood that beating wives is allowed only if they become disloyal.

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.

The practices of Muhammad and his companions (which have been posted above) are a witnesses of the beating of wives. How can Islamic preachers neglect these Ahadith claim that they can understand the Quranic verse better than Muhammad and his companions?

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 the poor wife to give away some of her 'rights' in name of making a '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 the 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.

Islamic Apologists: Islam allows men to beat their wives only with a Miswak (a small stick to clean teeth)

Islamic preachers present this excuse (link):

وقال عطاء : قلت لابن عباس ما الضرب غير المبرح ؟ قال : بالسواك ونحوه .

‘Ata said: I said to Ibn `Abbas, what is the kind of hitting that is not harsh? He said, Hitting with a siwak and the like.

Response:

This singular tradition is doubtful even according to Muslim standards. And even if we consider it to be authentic, it is still only the opinion of a companiona Ibn Abbas. But as far as Muhammad is concerned, then it is clear that he allowed his companions to beat their wives brutally too with bruises.

So, what is the importance of Ibn Abbas as compared to Muhammad?

When Muhammad himself allowed the brutal beating of wives, why do Islamic apologists want to deceive people by bringing Ibn Abbas and leaving Muhammad?

The Deadly Combination: Woman’s beating + A Woman not having the right to divorce

We cannot understand the real misery of a woman until we look at things from the right perspective. This right perspective is the study of the deadly combination of a woman's beating and the fact that she does not have the right to get her freedom through a divorce, through a court, or through any other means.

In Islam, a woman can get her freedom from her husband in the following three ways:

Divorce: A woman does not have the right to initiate a divorce in Islam. Therefore, if her husband is beating her, she cannot get her freedom through a divorce.
Khul' (خلع): There is a common misconception (due to the false propaganda of Islamic preachers) that Islam gives women the right to initiate a divorce through khul'. However, this is not the case. In the real Islamic khul', a woman has to bribe her husband and offer him "ransom money". If he accepts the money, then he divorces her. However, if he refuses to accept the money, no one (including an Islamic court) can force him to divorce her. In simple terms, khul' is not a right of a woman in Islam. It is also a right of the husband only. If he beats her and also refuses to accept the ransom money, she will not be able 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 the 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 a woman, but it is still the “right” of a husband to either grant it or deny it.
Faskh-e-Nikah (i.e. dissolution of marriage through an Islamic Court): In this case, the Islamic court can separate the woman from her husband. However, this is limited to only some special cases (such as if the husband is impotent or if he is not providing food and clothing for his wife, or his whereabouts are not known. Please read the details of these few exceptional cases here. In the case of beating the wife (even with bruises), an Islamic court cannot grant a woman freedom from her husband through faskh. The only way that a wife can get her freedom from an abusive husband is if he breaks any part of her body. In this case, the wife will not automatically get a divorce, but she will have to pay the "ransom money" to her husband so that he will grant her freedom by divorcing her.

Details: Last Updated: 20 July 2024

Brutal Wife BEATING in Islam (Recommendation VS Actual Law)