Islam and Women

[Edwardo Piet]

The fundamentals of Islam is disgusting with regards to women. Period.

And no I am not saying that the old testament is any better. Both are TRASH.

[Mystic]

A Look at the meaning of “Daraba” in the Quran
وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ
And (as to) those [women] on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and [if that does not make any difference, then] leave them alone in the sleeping-places and [if that does not make any difference, then] strike them. (al-Nisa, 4/34)

A reliable study of the Qur’an can only be made when the mind is freed of previously held beliefs and notions, because pre-judging and viewing its concepts without objectivity will only lead to closed-mindedness and inflexibility. This is the one danger that every discerning researcher must avoid at all costs.

One of the verses that the opponents of Islam and the proponents of women’s rights have singled out in order to impugn the ordinances of Qur’an is the one mentioned above. The verse concerns the issue of the desertion (nushuz) of women. Instead of trying to objectively understand the true purport of the verse, they have resorted to strident criticism, unaware that discussions based around an incorrect presumption leads away from the truth and obstructs thinking.

In fact, through a detailed and necessary study of the word “yadribuhunna” (strike them) in the verse, one can infer two distinct meanings, which we will explain in some detail below:
The first meaning is derived by considering the apparent meaning of daraba, which is to hit; and the majority lean towards this interpretation.

The second meaning, which is consistent with a study of the context of the matter being discussed in the verse, is an alternate translation of the word daraba, which is a word with several different meanings. One can consider the possibility of this second meaning, which is indignation and disregard, as a response of the man to the nushuz displayed by his wife. This conforms to the extensive meaning of daraba, which includes parting and separation.1

Another meaning of daraba is to “turn away from” or “to dispense with”; therefore when referring to the speech of someone who is speaking nonsense, or to a piece of baseless writing, one may say, “fadribuhu ‘ala’l jidar” (throw it at the wall), which is an allegory for, “do not pay attention to it”.

The meaning of parting and separation for daraba can also be applied to the verse under consideration, and a study of the verse can be done on this very basis, because it has been mentioned that the term darabahas been used here because it denotes a sudden parting as opposed to a gradual one.2

Therefore, it seems that here the Qur’an advises the husband who has unsuccessfully tried to censure his rebellious wife by two milder means, to finally separate (daraba) from her. However, he should avoid any harshness towards her and patiently await for his action to have an effect; he should allow her to think over matters and to takes steps towards what is best for her. Therefore, when interpreted in this manner, we can say that the verse means to say: If a woman shirks her responsibility and acts inappropriately, then the husband must attempt to remedy matters in the prescribed stages.

Initially, the man must gently counsel his wife, and remind her of her responsibilities, and encourage her to reconsider her actions which have resulted in the unhappiness in the life they share together.

However, if the efforts of the husband are to no avail, and the wife persists in her improper behaviour, he must react conservatively by only leaving the marital bed but remain in the house and make no overt change to the normal routine of the household. This is because the verse of the Qur’an stipulates only the act of leaving the bed at this stage and no more.

If this action also does not bring about a change in the wife’s conduct, and she persists in behaving against her own interest, and the husband’s efforts are all in vain, then a sterner measure is required in an attempt to break the impasse. This step requires the husband to cut off all contact with his wife within the house and lead a completely separate life. It is as if he has removed the wife from her place of focus in the household, with the intention that she herself changes her mind and alters her disagreeable behaviour to prevent a further deterioration in the situation.

It is true that in this situation the wife still lives in the house and benefits from material and other comforts, but she will not be in the spiritual and emotional state to feel at peace, and this may motivate her to acknowledge her responsibility towards the family and take the first steps to restore harmony and allow the family to advance towards a better and happier life.

However, if we take daraba here to mean “striking”, and we assume that the Qur’an requires that in such circumstances, the man should compel his wife to resume her duties and responsibilities by raising his hand to her, so that she comes back to her senses, then acting on this interpretation will probably have an adverse effect for the reasons discussed below:

1. The books of jurisprudence state that the slightest physical violence towards one’s wife, if it bruises her skin, carries a penalty (diya) and such an act of chastisement is not permitted for the man for any reason. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether a lighter or soft blow may have any effect in chastising a rebellious wife and causing her to alter her behaviour; in fact it is highly unlikely that such an act would resolve anything.

In cases of nushuz, the jurists are more concerned with (legislating for) the action of the man with regards to stopping the maintenance of his wife and not the matter of beating or physical chastisement. As a rule, jurists have not made a thorough examination of the issue of beating, rather they have focused on its secondary details; such as the number and frequency of blows, the circumstances under which the perpetrator is excused from having to pay the penalty or blood-money (diya), or if the woman displays her fractious behaviour continually and every day, how many times may the man resort to hitting her, and for how long such violence is permitted, etc. These questions need to be discussed in detail but even a lengthy examination may not be able address all the issues that arise in this regard.

2. Usually physical discipline will only push a woman into a position of bitterness and animosity, especially when she realizes that the husband has used his last resort and can do no more to stop her; at this time she may feel there is nothing more he can direct at her.

3. Any physical action will usually result in an adverse reaction, and may drive the woman to become even more entrenched and resolute in her misbehaviour. This is especially the case especially for women who have a quarrelsome nature and who are more prone to antagonism than women of a calmer and more level-headed temperament.

Therefore, the use of punishment and force on this type of women will only harden their obstinacy, sometimes leading to a loss of control on both sides with unpredictable results. Whenever one embarks on a method of chastisement to bring about compliance and ultimately restore an affectionate relationship between the spouses, there is always the possibility that the outcome may not be positive, or that the rift between them becomes even deeper or the chance of any mutual agreement in the future is weakened.

4. To compel the woman into compliance through physical violence is not an agreeable process psychologically for both spouses and will not provide inner contentment to either one. In time it will erode their love for one another and ultimately may lead to the breakdown of the marriage. On the other hand, it seems that the previously described step of total disassociation from the wife, while she still lives within the household, may be the stimulus that causes her to review matters and think about the future and persuade her to reform her behaviour.
Furthermore, such a rejection by her husband is unpleasant for the wife and she would not be able to bear or tolerate it for long.

5. No one can deny that the final step in this series of actions, which apparently seems irrevocable, where the wife has resolutely rejected all the efforts of her husband to restore harmonious relations, is divorce. Divorce is the last resort when every other course of action fails.

Therefore when all three steps fail to achieve the compliance of the wife, and no amount of reasoning can change her inappropriate behaviour, the husband embarks on a course of permanent separation and dissolution of the marriage by invoking divorce. When the husband is convinced that nothing will break the impasse and that the marital bond has broken down completely, he brings about relief from the stormy relationship through the agency of divorce, without the need for any physical chastisement or action.

6. We know that Islam has paid a special attention to the spirit and true meaning of earthly life, and the paths that lead to the its best conclusion. For this reason, it promotes a sound relationship between members of the family and recognizes that a strong attachment between husband and wife will result in the prosperity of a family.

As a result of the great respect accorded to women in every aspect of life, the husband has not been allowed to put the least pressure on his wife to perform household chores or to force her to do something that is against her disposition. In fact, the wife has also been given the choice to ask for payment from her husband for breastfeeding their child.

By appreciating that Islam has adopted a holistic approach to the issues relating to women, which incorporates their rights and honour in the household and in society, it is not improbable that in Islam’s view, men cannot react with physical violence in the face of the rebellious behaviour of the wives because it is not compatible with the Islamic ethos of love and harmony amongst the spouses in a family.

The holy Prophet (S) has stated: I am amazed at the one who strikes his wife, while he is more deserving to be struck himself; do not strike your wives with canes, because there is a legislative retaliation (qisas) for that. Rather, chastise them with a curtailment in their maintenance; thus, you shall gain felicity in this world and the next. 3

Here the Prophet (S) reminds men that it is more beneficial to them to gain the attention of women by punishing them by curtailing their allowances rather than by physically striking them. This is because, on the one hand, it will discourage them from rebellious and improper conduct, and on the other, you will not be answerable in front of God and, in the hereafter, you will have a defence for your actions.

7. Finally, if it is insisted that the meaning of daraba in this verse is indeed chastisement through physical means, as the apparent reading suggests, it must be stated that this is not an obligatory command, so that this step becomes incumbent on a husband whose wife exhibits nushuz or rebelliousness, and that he has no choice but to resort to physical chastisement. In fact, there are indications that suggest the use of other means, such as curtailing living expenses, by which he can deal with nushuz, and compel his wife to reform. Thus, the step suggested by the verse is instructive in that it mentions one way of rectifying the wife’s behaviour and recalling her to her responsibility.

Therefore, if in times when human thought and reasoning had not yet matured, it was possible to counter the nushuz of a wife through physical discipline, albeit with special conditions, in these times when we are in a more enlightened era, a different reaction to nushuz is needed. For this reason it is necessary to change and adapt the existing methodology and not to ignore the needs of the age.

Therefore, nowadays when women have reached a much higher level of education and maturity of thought, the process of staged separation initiated by the husband to control the rebellious behaviour of his wife is likely to succeed in convincing her to change her position. It can bring about an atmosphere which is free of strife and antagonism, which is easily achievable, and restore harmony in the relationship and family life. And this is possible by considering both possible meanings of the word daraba in God’s word, as we have explained.

The Qur’an lends itself to a wide range of interpretation – and indeed, this is part of the miracle of this divinely inspired text. For this reason, this independent and living entity shall endure for all time.


1. Thus, it is said, “Daraba al-dahru baynana”, meaning that, “The passage of time caused us to part”. (al-Munjid, under the entry for daraba).
2. For further information, refer to: Lisan al-‘Arab, v. 1, pp 451-477; Mu‘jam Muqa’is al-Lugha, v. 3, p 398-399.
3. Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, v. 14, p. 250, printed by Mu’asasa Al al-bayt; and Bihar al-Anwar, v. 103, p. 249, report 38. It is noteworthy that according to the traditionists and scholars of rijal, this narration is classified as reliable (muaththaq) or according to other reports, even authentic (sahih), (such as the tradition narrated from Abu Maryam). Therefore, other reports which have been cited against it, for example the tradition of “al-darb bi’l siwak” (striking with the wooden toothbrush) are problematic in two respects: firstly from the aspect of reliability, because it is a tradition with an incomplete chain (mursal); other than featuring in the exegesis Majma‘ al-Bayan, it does not appear in any original source. Secondly, many senior jurists have attempted to explain and justify this tradition and this itself suggests that they regard the usage of the term daraba to be in other than its apparent meaning. In his discussion on nikah (marriage) in his work “al-Masalik”, Shahid al-Thani defines the phrase, “al-darb bi’l siwak” as: “It is intended to mean playfully, otherwise such an act is unlikely to chastise or encourage reform”. The late Bahrani in his “al-Hada’iq” agrees with Shahid al-Thani that daraba here is not in the meaning of striking physically, by adding: “It is not striking with a whip or with a stick…and there must be no bodily injury as a result.” (Al-Hada’iq, v. 22, p. 618). Finally, as a further emphasis, we can quote a tradition from “Al-Fiqh al-Mansub ila’l Imam al-Rida (A)”, in which Imam al-Rida (A) in the course of explaining the verses, states, “It is a friendly (playful) strike…”. All this shows that that the term “fadribuhunna” in the verse has not been used in the commonly held meaning of hitting or striking.

[WinterHold]

Personally, I do believe the following:

-Yes. The Quran did state that beating your wife is okay, if and only if:

1-She beats you first

An eye for an eye is a concept given in the Quran; it's the only way to rule.

Let's be honest. What is more humiliating and disgusting? treating a grown up adult like a child like a disabled, or treating them like grown ups who resonssible for their actions?

Women are not children. They are not second class humans; they are not disabled. They know that they are doing.
A woman can kill. Lead armies. Torture. Send men crying in their blood.

Women are awesome. From their toes, to their heads. So sorry. But the sexist act is not beating them if they beat; the sexist act is to cut them a slack from justice as you would so for mentally disabled people or children.

Yeah..They deserve to rule and vote; too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the verse say "If you fear arrogance/rebelion from your wife"

Therefore the wife doesn't actually have to make an action, it's punishment purely based on the husbands emotions relating to his wife.  If he fears arrogance from her he enacts these punishments.

Rebellion would be closer to the correct meaning.

What follows is the key:

Rebellion is types. That means hitting the husband and calling him names for example, are two different acts but both are rebelions. 
The verse gives 3 kinds of replies to the rebellions;

We have simple advice, then abandoning in bed, then hitting.

You can't go against the eye for an eye verse being a law. So it makes sense; if your wife rebelled and ignored you sexually, ignore her in bed, if your wife called you names and made fun of you, advice her, if your wife beat you, beat her.

Eye for an eye.

[paulpablo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the verse say "If you fear arrogance/rebelion from your wife"

Therefore the wife doesn't actually have to make an action, it's punishment purely based on the husbands emotions relating to his wife.  If he fears arrogance from her he enacts these punishments.

Rebellion would be closer to the correct meaning.

What follows is the key:

Rebellion is types. That means hitting the husband and calling him names for example, are two different acts but both are rebelions. 
The verse gives 3 kinds of replies to the rebellions;

We have simple advice, then abandoning in bed, then hitting.

You can't go against the eye for an eye verse being a law. So it makes sense; if your wife rebelled and ignored you sexually, ignore her in bed, if your wife called you names and made fun of you, advice her, if your wife beat you, beat her.

Eye for an eye.

No because that's not what the verse says.
It doesn't say if your wife rebels, it says if you fear rebellion from your wife. Wether she has rebelled or not.
Therefore if you follow what the verse says then it isn't necessarily an eye for an eye, it can be take someone's eye out if you fear they're about to take yours.
it says in black and white, if you fear rebellion.

[WinterHold]

Rebellion would be closer to the correct meaning.

What follows is the key:

Rebellion is types. That means hitting the husband and calling him names for example, are two different acts but both are rebelions. 
The verse gives 3 kinds of replies to the rebellions;

We have simple advice, then abandoning in bed, then hitting.

You can't go against the eye for an eye verse being a law. So it makes sense; if your wife rebelled and ignored you sexually, ignore her in bed, if your wife called you names and made fun of you, advice her, if your wife beat you, beat her.

Eye for an eye.

No because that's not what the verse says.
It doesn't say if your wife rebels, it says if you fear rebellion from your wife. Wether she has rebelled or not.
Therefore if you follow what the verse says then it isn't necessarily an eye for an eye, it can be take someone's eye out if you fear they're about to take yours.
it says in black and white, if you fear rebellion.

Why would I fear somebody that didn't do anything to stir my fear?
fear and paranoia are so different.

I can't negate two verses with each other.
I must join this verse, with eye for an eye.

But why would I be afraid? so as a man, i have no voice?

[paulpablo]

No because that's not what the verse says.
It doesn't say if your wife rebels, it says if you fear rebellion from your wife. Wether she has rebelled or not.
Therefore if you follow what the verse says then it isn't necessarily an eye for an eye, it can be take someone's eye out if you fear they're about to take yours.
it says in black and white, if you fear rebellion.

Why would I fear somebody that didn't do anything to stir my fear?
fear and paranoia are so different.

I can't negate two verses with each other.
I must join this verse, with eye for an eye.

But why would I be afraid? so as a man, i have no voice?

I don't know what you mean by being afraid because you have no voice, I wasn't taking about your voice.

I'm saying that at least in the English translation this verse seems to have nothing to do with an eye for an eye.

It looks like it's about fearing rebellion from your wife, punishments to dish out when in fear of rebellion, and forgiveness when obedience towards the husband is given by the wife.

[WinterHold]

Why would I fear somebody that didn't do anything to stir my fear?
fear and paranoia are so different.

I can't negate two verses with each other.
I must join this verse, with eye for an eye.

But why would I be afraid? so as a man, i have no voice?

I don't know what you mean by being afraid because you have no voice, I wasn't taking about your voice.

I'm saying that at least in the English translation this verse seems to have nothing to do with an eye for an eye.

It looks like it's about fearing rebellion from your wife, punishments to dish out when in fear of rebellion, and forgiveness when obedience towards the husband is given by the wife.

An "eye for an eye" is a Quranic law. It can be found here:

Sura 5
( 45 )   And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

So, another verse cannot negate this one, or else, the Quran is contradicting itself.

Before fearing the rebellion of my wife, she has to act out with an act that stirs my fear, Sura 5 is there to shut any paranoid action I might take.

I can't beat her except when she beats me first. I cannot fear her except she beats me first, or else I'm paranoid and I just contradicted Sura 5.

1-She beats me
2-I fear her rebellion 
3-I beat her back
4-If I forgive her, God will reward me.

[Jesster]

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

I'm pretty sure Nicki Minaj said that.

[paulpablo]

I don't know what you mean by being afraid because you have no voice, I wasn't taking about your voice.

I'm saying that at least in the English translation this verse seems to have nothing to do with an eye for an eye.

It looks like it's about fearing rebellion from your wife, punishments to dish out when in fear of rebellion, and forgiveness when obedience towards the husband is given by the wife.

An "eye for an eye" is a Quranic law. It can be found here:

Sura 5
( 45 )   And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

So, another verse cannot negate this one, or else, the Quran is contradicting itself.

Before fearing the rebellion of my wife, she has to act out with an act that stirs my fear, Sura 5 is there to shut any paranoid action I might take.

I can't beat her except when she beats me first. I cannot fear her except she beats me first, or else I'm paranoid and I just contradicted Sura 5.

1-She beats me
2-I fear her rebellion 
3-I beat her back
4-If I forgive her, God will reward me.

But the verse is specifically addressed to the husband.
It's not just saying husband and wife, treat each other equally and remember and eye for a eye.
It's talking specifically about the wife's rebellion and obedience.
It's not necessarily even mentioning the wife hitting the husband, just rebellion and obedience.
If it was talking about the husband and wife attacking each other then there would be no need for this verse because the people concerned could just consult the eye for an eye verse for the relevant info.

The Quran probably is contradicting itself, it's not like it was written by anyone special.

It has one rule that says everything is based on an eye for an eye yet another rule that states punishment can be justified if one person fears another persons rebelion.
That could be seen as a contradiction I suppose but that's not the main intention of what I'm arguing.

[Edwardo Piet]

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

I'm pretty sure Nicki Minaj said that.

Pretty sure that her butt was her definition of an eye for an eye.