u/fana19

I. The Ayah/Verse

"The men are to support the women with what God has bestowed upon them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright females are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those females from whom you fear desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate (idribuhunna) from them. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great." (Quran, 4:34, The Monotheist Group 2013 ed).

II. Best Meaning Maintains Justice

The Qur'an instructs believers to follow the best meaning (39:18) of its verses when multiple plausible interpretations exist. In my view, 4:34 is one of those cases, and reading wa-idribuhunna as "beat them" creates serious textual, ethical, and legal contradictions that are absent if it is understood as "leave them," "separate from them," or another non-violent form of distancing.

The verse addresses a situation in which a husband merely fears (تخافون) nushuz from his wife—not a proven offense established through evidence or due process. If idribuhunna means "beat them," the husband becomes, simultaneously, the complainant, investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, all on the basis of suspicion alone. Nowhere else does the Qur'an permit corporal punishment without evidence, witnesses, or judicial process. Such an interpretation would stand as a remarkable exception to the Qur'an's repeated insistence on justice, fairness, and due process.

III. Mitigation via Light Beatings Still Unjust

Nor do attempts to soften the traditional reading resolve the underlying problem. Whether idribuhunna is interpreted as a "light" beating, a "symbolic" tap, or some other form of mitigated physical contact, the fundamental issue remains unchanged: it is still a physical punishment imposed unilaterally by the husband on the basis of mere fear or suspicion, without proof, witnesses, or judicial process. Reducing the severity of the violence does not cure the absence of justice. The Qur'an's concern is not merely proportionality of punishment but the fairness of imposing punishment or nonconsensual offensive physical contact at all. A symbolic assault carried out without due process is still an unjust exercise of power. Such interpretations merely reduce the degree of the injustice while preserving its essential structure.

The violent reading also conflicts with the Qur'an's broader ethical framework. Husbands are instructed to live with their wives in kindness, protect them, and treat them honorably. Domestic violence--and any hitting of a wife, especially as the culmination of marital conflict--is fundamentally difficult to reconcile with commands of compassion and protection. A man cannot coherently be both his wife's protector and her sanctioned assailant.

IV. Context Supports Progressively Non-Violent Resolution/Arbitration

The immediate context also favors a non-violent reading. The verse outlines a progression: admonish them, abandon the marital bed, then wa-idribuhunna. The following verse (4:35) immediately calls for arbitration by representatives from both families. A sequence of increasing separation leading to mediation is coherent; a sequence of admonition, bed-separation, physical violence, and then arbitration is far less so. Progressive distancing naturally culminates in outside intervention, not (light) beating/hitting.

Beyond these contextual arguments, the Arabic itself does not require the meaning "beat." The root ḍ-r-b (ضرب) is famously polysemous throughout the Qur'an, carrying meanings such as set forth, travel, cover, separate, and strike depending on context. The question is therefore not whether the root can mean "strike"—it certainly can—but whether that is the best meaning in this verse.

V. Historically Idribuhunna Had a Non-Violent Meaning (Including Shia Hadith on It)

Some object that if the intended meaning were "leave" or "separate," the construction would have required iḍribū ʿanhunna ("leave from them"), rather than iḍribūhunna. However, this objection is undermined by classical lexicography. Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (19th century), drawing on much earlier Arabic sources, notes that the preposition ʿan is not always necessary for the verb to carry the sense of leaving or turning away. In other words, the grammar itself does not force a violent interpretation.

An additional linguistic observation is worth noting. Classical Arabic distinguishes between different derived forms of the root ḍ-r-b. Habib Anthony Salmone's Advanced Learner's Arabic-English Dictionary (1889), for example, lists aḍraba (أضرب) as meaning, among other things, "to leave," "quit," "abandon," or "renounce." The imperative in 4:34 is written وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ, beginning with hamzat al-waṣl (ٱ). While hamzat al-waṣl is a grammatical feature rather than an independent lexical hamza, this illustrates that derived forms of the verb were historically recognized as carrying meanings beyond physical striking. At minimum, it cautions against assuming that every occurrence of the imperative must denote hitting.

Historical evidence also suggests that non-violent understandings of idribuhunna are not modern inventions. Even though I do not consider hadith authoritative for establishing religious law, they can preserve valuable evidence of how early Muslims understood Arabic vocabulary.

One Shia narration, preserved in Mustadrak al-Wasā'il (14:250) and Biḥār al-Anwār (103:249), attributes the following statement to the Prophet (Links to Arabic here: Here and Here):

(16618) 3 Jami’ al-Akhbar: On the authority of the Prophet (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his family) that he said: “I am astonished by the one who beats his wife when he is more deserving of beating [] than she. Do not beat your wives with wood, for there is retaliation in them, **but strike them with hunger and nakedness,** so that you may gain in this world and the hereafter.” [la tadribuu nisa'akum bialkhashab fa'iina fih alqasasi, walakin adribuhuna bialjue waleari] This meant to cut them off or separate them from provisions (food and clothing, which men are typically required to provide).

Whether or not one accepts the narration's authenticity or its proposed application, it is significant linguistically. It explicitly rejects physical beating and instead understands adribūhunna as cutting off provision rather than inflicting bodily harm. I do not necessarily agree with that interpretation either, but it demonstrates an important historical point: long before modern discussions about domestic violence or feminism, there were already Muslims who understood idribuhunna as something other than physical assault. That alone undermines the claim that "beat them" was the only historically conceivable meaning.

Summary

Taken together, the evidence is cumulative rather than dependent on any single point:

• The violent reading conflicts with the Qur'an's principles of justice, kindness, and protection.
• It creates the only apparent instance in which corporal punishment could be imposed solely on suspicion and by a party with an obvious conflict of interest.
• Attempts to mitigate the command into a "light" or "symbolic" beating do not solve this problem, because the injustice lies in authorizing unilateral physical punishment without due process.
• The literary flow into the arbitration of 4:35 is more coherent if the final step is separation rather than violence.
• Classical Arabic allows ḍaraba to bear multiple meanings, and early lexicographers did not restrict this construction to physical striking.
• Early Muslim literature itself preserves non-violent understandings of idribuhunna, demonstrating that such readings long predate modern concerns about domestic violence.

For these reasons, I find it difficult to conclude that 4:34 authorizes wife-beating. The non-violent reading is not only linguistically plausible but also far more consistent with the Qur'an's overarching commitment to justice, mercy, and coherent legal principles.

And Allah knows best.

Sala'am all.

The Quran contains many verses on modesty/chastity, as well as a few on nudity and dress codes that I'd like to explore deeper here.

1. Clothing to cover "shame" AND for adornment

Firstly, when Adam and Eve (peace on them) were in the garden, they were originally naked and unashamed, in a natural, pure state. Once they ate from the tree, they gained insight that made them ashamed to be naked even in front of each other, gathering up foliage to cover their "shame" (7:22). Note how the word for nudity/genitals here is from the same root for shame (sawatahuma), and it's used for both man and woman. Thus, it's clear that the genitals should be a source of shame to casually expose, and are indisputably private.

7:26 adds that clothing is meant to both cover our "shame"/nudity and ALSO for adornment (this goes for both men and women). But it adds that the "garment of righteousness" is best, harkening that while outward modesty and even adornment are good, being righteous is key.

2. Both men/women to lower their gaze and guard private parts

Next, the Quran calls on both men and women to lower their gazes and guard their chastity/privates (furuj, referring to genitals) in 24:30-31. Note, how the command to lower the gaze is pre-eminent and precedes the command even to guard one's privates. Thus, your duty to control your lust and guard your eyes persists regardless of others' failures to guard their own furuj. In today's day and age, this means making every effort to not just avoid porn, but to avoid looking at the opposite sex with lustful/sexual thoughts in general. The guarding of private parts has led Sunni scholars to conclude the verse means generally excluding others from seeing/accessing the navel to knee area (or speedo area/short shorts according to shias). Thus, the genital/butt area is actual nudity that must be covered by both sexes.

3. Women specifically to cover breasts/unordinary beauty + cloak themselves

Next, in 24:31, women are told to pull their khimar/(head)covers over their bosoms and to not display their beauty/zeenat except that which ordinarily (must) appear. The specific mention of bosoms and private parts for women (but not bosoms for men) highlights the special need to cover the breasts for women (for obvious reasons), distinct from other parts referred to simply as "adnornment"/zeenat right after. Thus, one might say that genitals/butt are the genitals/nudity, plus the breasts for women, whereas the other female body parts are seen as a non-nudity form of zeenat that still must be covered. Even Ibn Arabi, one of the greatest scholars in our faith, claimed that the female body is not all nudity, only the genitals are just like the man (and I'd add the female breasts given their special mention alongside privates), but still supported a dress code. I translate zeenat as "beauty" here intentionally to cover both natural and artificial beauty, as the Quran states in 3:14, that women, gold, and cattle are "beautified" (same root as zeenat) for mankind (with women being naturally beautiful, and gold/silver having decorative beauty).

In 33:59, the Prophet is told to command the believing women to draw a jilbab about themselves (i.e. to lengthen or cast a cloak around their bodies), so they that may be "known" and not harmed. This suggests that when in public especially (i.e. in front of other strangers/people), women must cover their bodies, so they are known as believing/modest women. While it does not specify exactly what parts, by referring to a jilbab/cloak and stating to cover oneself with it, the suggestion is that it would refer to loose-fitting clothing draped about the body in a manner to conceal the shape/curves beneath. Thus, the "outer garments" refer to covering of the bulk of the body, torso, abdomen, stomach, thighs, hips etc. Notably, the Quran does support that covering more prevents one from harm. Many assume this just means it prevents rape/assault, but as we know, no dress prevents all assaults. However, dressing relatively modestly greatly reduces the risk, especially when compared to other women dressed more scantily, of being catcalled or even propositioned. Importantly, there is a harm in unreasonably/unnecessarily causing temptation/lust in other men (including married men who may feel resentful of what they can't have), regardless of whether those men ever act on it. Our actions don't exist in a vacuum.

4. What is ordinary beauty according to tradition?

We know that women must cover the majority of their body logically, because the covering is framed as "cover... except," meaning what can be shown is an exception to what must otherwise be covered. However, it does not say to cover EVERYTHING without exception (and what is shown by wind blowing or accident is already excepted from punishment as we are not punished for things outside our control, so it must mean it is permissible to knowingly show some beauty). Three out of the four madhabs believe that means covering everything except face and hands (and feet according to Hanifi), and one school requires covering the face/hands even (Hanbali). Most would permit regular adornment on the parts that can be exposed (such as hand henna or bracelets during Eid, or bright colors/sequins on clothing, though the strictest argue about even that, essentially making no concession for displaying ANY beauty). They argue that the khimar means a headcover, so even though covering hair is not expressly commanded, it's presumed to already be done. I don't find this convincing, nor did all early scholars (some noting the exact line is not drawn in Quran).

Hadiths don't add much either, with one arguably weak hadith stating the Prophet (PBUH) declared that only "this" and "this" are allowed to be shown by women, while pointing to his face and hands. But a) that's not a clear command, b) pointing toward the face could mean the whole head/hair, and c) he didn't point to his feet yet some scholars exempt feet anyway, suggesting that may not be entirely exhaustive. In another hadith, women were observed looking like "crows" after the verse on covering was revealed, and it is said they ripped the lower part of their dresses to use as khimars (perhaps even suggesting they did not have a khimar up top to begin with). But this verse is not a command, nor does it establish what is required to be covered.

So, very, very strangely, our religion insists on the icon of the hijabi Muslim woman, but nowhere in the Quran NOR even the hadith is it ever explicitly commanded to cover hair.

More strangely, most early scholars had a bifurcated dress code where free women had to cover everything but face/hands generally, while "slave women" need only cover navel to knee like men, with many adding breasts/upper torso to that (majority also did not require slave women to be veiled even for prayer despite a hadith specifically requiring khimar for prayer). They claimed that this was to allow for labor/work without burden (acknowledging the practical necessity of showing lower arms/lower legs etc. to quite literally work, e.g. knead dough, walk through irrigation/rivers as we even see the Queen of Sheba doing when she lifts her dress to step in water). It also created a social hierarchy where slave women could be subject to harassment more, and were not to pretend to be "free women" (no comment on this disgustingness of this). Note, that the Quran makes no distinction between free and slave women's nudity and dress code (and modesty is the reason we have it, defeating the idea that it is corruptive for free women to be exposed but not slaves, as it creates fitnah regardless). Even the hadith used to support hijab do not distinguish between slave and free, so instead it seems that scholars simply acknowledged that labor/work is encumbered by strict burqa-like dress codes.

5. Minority view on ordinary beauty

Not all early scholars believed only face/hands/feet could be exposed. Even within Hanifi school of thought they extended showing the hands to include some of the lower arm, ordinary for doing labor, already undercutting a strict cut-off. The most-cited early scholar to add hair to the list of face/hands/feet being allowed, was the 7th century Ibn Jubayr, who believed it was "reprehensible" (makruh) for free women to show hair, but noted it was "not in the verse" when asked specifically about hair. He also believed both free and slave women had to cover the body/breasts equally. (See: https://adisduderija.blogspot.com/2016/10/on-hijab-and-awrah-of-women-and-slaves.html ).

In my personal opinion, I would humbly argue that body parts exposed for wudu would be ordinary body parts, as they must be exposed 5x a day, and believers throughout history have had to travel together, go to mosques that are in the open, make wudu in rivers etc. while in mixed crowds/in hajj, suggesting that making routine, ordinary wudu does not require either sex to expose "nudity"/awrah. Those body parts (lower arms/legs) are also frequently exposed for daily living. For example, clam digging is done with bare feet/bottom of legs. Working in rice patty fields, kneading dough etc. Even having to hurry or run through a crowd may require lifting one's dress slightly. It's not impossible to do these things with extra clothing but it is harder, just as it was not impossible for slaves to work while completely clothed, but it is a practical burden for daily living and certain vocations to have to constantly fasten/fix a khimar/hijab, esp the loose/draping kind many scholars demanded (down to a strand of hair).

For all of the above reasons, my personal view on women's dress code is as follows:

1. Nudity allowed in front of husband, or as needed for medical care (necessity always OK, female preferred if available)
2. Full-coverage bikini is the bare minimum in front of close male relatives/women (guarding privates and covering breasts), breasts perhaps OK to feed a baby (as practical necessity) when in front of close family/women, though still better to cover. Other zeenat should be covered according to custom/culture.
3. Everything but head/neck, hands/lower arms, feet/very lower legs, must be covered in loose-fitting clothing while outside, depending on custom/ordinary appearance. Covering more is still encouraged (esp if not doing labor/activities), with hijab being a strong modesty symbol in our faith to be "known" as modest, but not necessarily required in all places/times.

A FINAL THOUGHT/QUESTION FOR THE WOMEN

Finally, and this is important, let's use some parting logic. If you're a woman, be honest with yourself: what would you be comfortable with your man looking at while talking to a woman? Her face/head? Her hands? Those do not strike me as especially immodest parts to look at. However, if he is looking at her breasts, thighs, butt, or even waist while talking, you intuitively find that offensive and inappropriate. Thus, what you would find offensive for your husband to look at in women, you have a duty to shield other men from looking at in you. That which you cover from men, your man should equally shield his eyes from fixating on in women. And that which you expose to men, you should have no objection to your man looking at in women.

Wallahu'alam.