Sala'am all, I'm a Quranist Muslim, and have studied the Quran for several years, so I wanted to provide a Quranic exegesis of the single polygamy verse in the Quran, and explain why it clearly does not allow polygamy for any reason, and esp. not polygamy with children, as someone falsely claimed on the debatereligion sub recently, but refused to address the verse. Note that the Quran is the infallible word of God to Muslims, so it is the Supreme Law and final word on any given issue:

4:3: And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women [their mothers], who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice, then one....

I added in "mothers" in parentheses as some translations say mothers, but most say women. I argued at length both in the Qurani sub with (hopefully not) a Quranist arguing polygamy is for whatever desire you wish, AND at the same time was arguing with a non-Muslim in the debatereligion sub that the women whom you can marry are not the orphan children (who aren't women) but their mothers. You can check the word for word translation of the verse for yourself if you doubt my claims, as I like to be transparent: https://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=3

Clearly, the verse specifically says that IF you fear injustice to the orphans (children who lost their fathers, as a single mother would still be considered to have orphaned kids without a male provider/guardian), THEN to marry the women (nisa). The word for orphans is both male and female, and refers to fatherless kids (so clearly not adult males and females). Moreover, the word for women, nisa, refers to adult females, not children (esp. mixed sex children). The fear of injustice, which we see mentioned repeatedly throughout the Quran, concerns eating up the wealth of those who lost their fathers but who presumably were left with some inheritance. As their step-fathers, you are to protect their wealth until they "come of age." This is confirmed just a few ayat later, where Allah states:

4:6: Therefore, test the judgment of the orphans in your care, until they reach the age of marriage. And when you recognize mature judgment in them, then hand over their wealth to them. Nor shall you consume it in wasteful spending, or in haste, for fear they will grow up and claim it. Moreover, if the one who is the orphan’s guardian is rich, then let him abstain from it entirely. But if one is poor, then let him consume of it only in accordance with what is right....

Here, we see exactly the potential injustice, as Allah commands those men whom young orphans are entrusted, to not overspend their money. If you are a rich man, you should provide for the orphan kid yourself. If you do not have the means, you should spend cautiously from the inheritance, but not enrich yourself with it. This verse makes clear that the orphans referred to are children who must "come of age," and that the stepfather must not be unjust protecting the inheritance. Moreover, the verse clarifies that children must be of sound judgment or the "age of maturity" (distinct from being a child), before being given their money to spend. That clarifies that children are not capable of sound judgment, cannot enter into financial transactions, and must be protected until they reach the age of majority.

Thus, it's crystal clear that a child (anyone who has not reached the age of sound judgment/maturity), is incapable of entering into a marriage, which is a financial transaction and a solemn covenant (according to Quran), as it requires exchange of dowry, promises, and covenants. In the law, it is a contract, requiring witnesses.

All of this together, completely precludes that you can marry multiple wives for pleasure, for love, or even for convenience. Instead, it is a limited allowance for the sake of orphans, and to protect them (and the widowed single mothers). That is why Allah says, IF you fear injustice to orphans, THEN you may marry 2+ women, but even then only if you can be just.

Finally, using common sense, Allah places a huge emphasis on male and female union, stating that he created Adam's mate as a place of repose and tranquility (His very first spoken command to Adam being to dwell with his wife in sakeena/peace in paradise). In hadith, some would say you must even marry to complete your deen/faith (which I don't agree with, but I do recognize the importance of it). Thus, to the extent there are 50/50 females to males of marriageable age (generally age 18-35, as I'll exclude the elderly where we see disparately more women in old age than men, due to longer life expectancy), if a man married more than one wife (even to protect orphans), when another man is deprived of even one wife or means to satisfy his needs, that would seem haram to me. Meaning, that at some point, if too many men had 2-4 wives, such that some men were left with nothing, that'd be excessive and oppressive to the other men.

Hope that clarifies!

A Qur'anic Approach to Modesty, Exposure, and the Exceptional Privacy of Childbirth

I think Muslim discussions of modesty sometimes collapse several different concepts into one: ʿawrah, nudity, adornment, sexual temptation, cultural dress, and the obligation to lower one's gaze. I believe the Qur'an gives us a more nuanced framework—one in which bodily privacy is real and important, but the precise dress code is not necessarily identical in every circumstance.

Most importantly, I think we should distinguish ordinary life, where small practical exposures may be unavoidable, from extraordinary and foreseeable events such as childbirth, where enormous bodily exposure is anticipated and therefore should be deliberately managed with dignity and privacy.

1. Clothing is for covering shame and for adornment

When Adam and his wife ate from the tree, their private parts became apparent to them and they began covering themselves (Qur'an 7:22). The Qur'an uses saw'ah for what became exposed—a word associated with something shameful or disgraceful.

Then Allah says: “O children of Adam, We have sent down to you clothing to cover your private parts and as adornment. But the garment of righteousness—that is best.” (7:26)

There are therefore two positive functions of clothing mentioned together:

• covering the saw'ah;
• rīsh, adornment/beautification.

This matters because modesty is not simply about making the human body invisible. Clothing provides privacy and dignity, while also allowing legitimate beauty and adornment.

The Qur'an's concern with the saw'ah also establishes something important: genital/private exposure is not supposed to be casual. The private parts are private precisely because they are not ordinary public bodily features.

At the same time, Allah concludes the verse by reminding us that the “garment of righteousness” is best. Outward clothing matters, but modesty ultimately belongs to a broader ethic of righteousness.

2. Modesty applies to both the person being seen and the person looking

The Qur'an then gives an instruction to men: “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts.” (24:30)

And immediately gives women the corresponding instruction: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts...” (24:31)

I think this is extremely important.

There are two obligations operating simultaneously:

The observer must control his gaze.

The person must guard her/his private parts.

One person's failure does not cancel the other's obligation.

If someone dresses immodestly, a man does not thereby acquire permission to stare. Conversely, the obligation to lower one's gaze does not mean that people are therefore entitled to expose whatever they wish.

The Qur'an places the command to lower the gaze first. Modesty therefore cannot be reduced to a woman's responsibility to prevent men from looking. Men have an independent obligation to discipline their own eyes.

This includes deliberately avoiding sexualized fixation on the opposite sex, not merely avoiding pornography.

3. Saw'ah, breasts, and zīnat are not necessarily one category

The Qur'an specifically tells women: “...and not display their adornment except what ordinarily appears thereof, and let them draw their coverings over their chests...” (24:31)

I think this permits an important conceptual distinction.

The genitals/private parts are saw'ah and constitute actual bodily nudity.

The female breasts/bosom receive a specific covering instruction in 24:31.

Then there is the broader category of zīnat—beauty and adornment—which encompasses considerably more than literal nudity.

This distinction is important because the Qur'an itself does not treat every part of the body as equally “naked.” In 3:14, for example, women, gold and silver, horses, livestock and cultivated land are all described in terms of things that have been beautified for humanity.

Thus I understand zīnat as encompassing both natural beauty and artificial adornment.

This is also why I do not think it is accurate to say that the Qur'an simply declares the entire female body to be nakedness. Classical scholars differed over the precise boundaries of women's ʿawrah, and Ibn ʿArabi, among others, held that the entire female body was not itself ʿawrah in the same sense as the private parts.

That does not eliminate a dress code. It means nudity and modest covering are not necessarily identical concepts.

4. What does the Qur'an actually require women to cover publicly?

Allah says: “O Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments around themselves...” (33:59)

The verse associates this with being recognized and not harmed.

I understand this as establishing a genuine principle of public modesty and bodily dignity. Women should not ordinarily present the substantial contours of the body in public; clothing should cover the torso, abdomen, hips, thighs and similar areas in a reasonably loose manner.

But I do not think the Qur'an itself gives us a complete anatomical diagram saying: “Every millimeter of this body must be covered, except exactly these three places.”

The Qur'an instead gives principles—covering the saw'ah, covering the bosom, concealing zīnat except what ordinarily appears, and wearing an outer garment.

That leaves room for juristic interpretation.

5. The majority position on hair should be distinguished from the explicit Qur'anic wording

The classical Sunni majority came to require women to cover the hair before non-mahram men. Three Sunni schools generally regarded the face and hands as exceptions to the ordinary public ʿawrah, while the Hanafi school also traditionally exempted the feet; the Hanbali tradition contains the stricter view concerning the face.

I respect that tradition.

But I do not think it is accurate to say that the Qur'an explicitly says, in so many words, “women must cover their hair.”

24:31 mentions the khimār and commands women to draw it over their juyūb—their chest/bosom openings. The classical inference is that a khimār was already a head covering and therefore its use necessarily covered the hair.

That is a legitimate classical argument.

But it is still an inference from the garment and context, rather than an explicit Qur'anic sentence saying “cover your hair.”

Likewise, the famous report concerning Asmā' and pointing to the face and hands has been disputed in its interpretation and explicit authority. It should therefore not be presented as though the Qur'an and hadith contain an uncontested anatomical list that everyone must accept.

There were also early scholars who did not fit neatly into the later standard formulation. Ibn Jubayr, for example, is reported to have regarded exposing women's hair as makruh while acknowledging that the requirement was not explicitly stated in the verse.

So I believe it is possible to take the Qur'anic modesty commands seriously without claiming that every detail of the later majority dress code is equally explicit in revelation.

6. Ordinary life matters when determining what “normally appears”

The phrase in 24:31 concerning what “ordinarily appears” is significant.

If Allah intended literally every part of a woman's body to be concealed under every circumstance, there would be no need for an exception for what ordinarily appears.

Historically, ordinary human activity has involved exposure of portions of the arms and legs for work, washing, travel, agriculture, cooking and other activities.

Even something as routine as wuḍūʾ requires exposing portions of the limbs. People have historically traveled, worked, walked through water, farmed, kneaded dough, carried things and performed physical labor without maintaining an absolutely fixed covering over every portion of the body at every second.

I therefore do not think modesty should be formulated in such a way that minor practical exposure in ordinary life becomes morally equivalent to exposing the private parts.

There is a difference between:

• deliberately exposing one's genitals;
• wearing clothing that reveals the body's sexual contours;
• having a lower arm visible while working;
• briefly lifting a garment to cross water;
• or some other ordinary, practically unavoidable exposure.

These should not all be collapsed into one category.

7. Necessity should not operate identically in every circumstance

This is where I think an especially important distinction is needed.

There is a legitimate concept of necessity in Islamic law. Medical treatment is an obvious example.

But I do not think the correct principle is: “Necessity exists, therefore modesty no longer matters.”

Rather: Necessity permits what the necessity actually requires.

This is why jurists discussing medical treatment generally say that the doctor should expose or look at only what is necessary, and that a female physician should be preferred when reasonably available.

The International Islamic Fiqh Academy, for example, has explicitly addressed female medical treatment by male physicians and emphasized restricting examination to what is necessary and encouraging the availability of female specialists.

So there is no contradiction between saying: “A woman's body may be exposed for necessary medical treatment”

and: “Unnecessary exposure during medical treatment remains undesirable or impermissible.”

The exception belongs to the necessity, not automatically to everyone who happens to be present.

8. But I would apply “necessity” differently to ordinary life and extraordinary events

Here is where I depart from what I think is a common way of framing modesty.

For small exposures in ordinary daily life, I believe necessity should sometimes be construed relatively broadly.

Human beings have to live.

They work, travel, wash, exercise, farm, cook, cross water, care for children, participate in public life and perform countless mundane activities. It is unreasonable to pretend that every tiny deviation from maximal coverage is an extraordinary moral crisis.

But extraordinary, foreseeable events are different.

If an event is known in advance to involve an enormous compromise of bodily privacy, then we have an opportunity—and therefore a responsibility—to plan around it.

Childbirth is the clearest example.

9. Childbirth should be treated as an exceptionally private event

Childbirth is not simply “another medical appointment.”

The actual delivery can involve:

• prolonged genital exposure;
• repeated examinations;
• blood and bodily fluids;
• involuntary urination or defecation;
• stretching and tearing;
• suturing;
• substantial physical pain;
• and the direct visual and physical observation of the reproductive organs.

Some of that exposure is unavoidable.

But that does not mean that all exposure surrounding the event is unavoidable.

This distinction is crucial:

• prolonged genital exposure;
• repeated examinations;
• blood and bodily fluids;
• involuntary urination or defecation;
• stretching and tearing;
• suturing;
• substantial physical pain;
• and the direct observation of the reproductive organ in a grotesquely injurious state.

The medical necessity belongs to the care being provided.

It does not automatically belong to every observer.

10. The husband is different from a spectator

I do think there is a stronger case for the husband's involvement.

A husband may have a genuine role in:

• comforting his wife;
• reassuring her;
• advocating for her;
• helping her communicate;
• assisting her practically;
• being present to welcome his newborn child into the world;
• and supporting her emotionally during an extremely difficult and life-threatening event.

That is qualitatively different from someone simply wanting to watch the birth, especially if the need for advocacy becomes redundant or duplicative of the husband's role.

Therefore I would not say that the husband's presence is necessarily equivalent to the presence of additional loved ones.

But there is another distinction: Being present to support one's wife is not the same thing as watching the physical delivery.

A husband can hold his wife's hand, speak to her, advocate for her, and remain emotionally present while deliberately positioning himself so that he does not watch the actual genital emergence.

Indeed, there are contemporary Islamic fatwas that make essentially this childbirth-specific distinction. Islamweb, for example, acknowledges the general permissibility of spouses seeing one another naked but nevertheless advises the husband not to look at his wife's nakedness during labor because of the nature of the scene. Other Hanafi authorities have likewise described the husband's presence during labor as raising a particular modesty concern while allowing it under circumstances of need.

So the question is not simply: “Can a husband ever see his wife's naked body?”

Of course the answer to that question is different.

The relevant question is: “Does a husband's legitimate role in supporting his wife require him to visually observe the genital process of childbirth?”

I do not think it does, in the same way it would be against modesty to look at the private parts of a spouse relieving themselves simply because casual looking and sexual access are allowed.

11. Spectatorship is the clearest case of unnecessary exposure

This is where I think the principle should be strongest.

A person who is merely watching has no medical necessity.

A friend doesn't need to watch.

A relative doesn't need to watch.

An additional staff member's convenience does not automatically create necessity.

And even a close family member's emotional interest in seeing the birth does not make visual observation medically necessary.

There is an important difference between:

participation and spectatorship.

The more extraordinary and intimate the event, the less appropriate it is to convert it into a spectator event.

This is especially true because childbirth is foreseeable. A woman does not suddenly discover afterward that her delivery required privacy. She can plan beforehand.

12. Foreseeable massive exposure creates a duty to plan for dignity

This is the principle I think deserves much more attention.

If a minor exposure is difficult to avoid during ordinary life, we can reasonably accommodate it.

But if we know beforehand that an event will involve massive and intimate bodily exposure, then we should make deliberate arrangements to minimize everything beyond what is unavoidable.

That means asking beforehand:

• Who actually needs to be there?
• Who actually needs to see?
• Can female personnel be used?
• Can unnecessary observers be excluded?
• Can the husband support his wife without watching the delivery?
• Can draping and positioning reduce exposure?
• Can students or additional staff be excluded?
• Can photography or recording of the intimate process be prohibited?

This is not excessive concern about modesty.

It is the logical application of the principle: The more substantial the unavoidable violation of ordinary privacy, the more carefully we should prevent avoidable violations from being added to it.

13. This is why “medical necessity” should never mean “medical culture has no modesty limits”

There is a danger in reasoning: “It's a hospital, therefore everything is acceptable.”

That does not follow.

Islamic medical ethics has historically recognized the opposite: medical necessity creates an exception precisely because exposure is ordinarily restricted.

So if a doctor needs to examine a particular area, that area can be exposed.

But the exception should not automatically include:

• unrelated body parts;
• unnecessary personnel;
• unnecessary examinations;
• unnecessary observers;
• unnecessary photography;
• or unnecessary visual access.

A woman can be medically vulnerable without becoming publicly available for observation.

That distinction is particularly important in childbirth.

14. Modesty is also about the gaze

This principle belongs to men as much as women.

A Muslim man cannot say: “Women should cover because men are tempted,”

and then treat his own gaze as somebody else's responsibility.

Allah commanded men first to lower their gaze.

Likewise, women are responsible for their own bodily modesty.

So modesty is reciprocal:

I guard my body.
You guard your eyes.
I do not deliberately expose what should be private.
You do not deliberately stare at what is exposed.

Both sides have duties.

15. A practical understanding of modest dress

On this interpretation, I would distinguish several levels.

Private parts

The genitals and buttocks are genuine saw'ah and should be treated as inherently private.

Female breasts

The bosom receives a specific Qur'anic covering instruction and should likewise be treated as private outside legitimate exceptions such as breastfeeding or necessary medical care.

Other bodily beauty

The remainder of the body falls under zīnat and public modesty rather than necessarily being identical to literal nakedness.

Ordinary public dress

Women should ordinarily wear loose clothing covering the substantial body—particularly the torso, abdomen, hips, buttocks and thighs—while allowing for what ordinarily appears in daily life.

I do not consider the Qur'an itself to establish an unequivocal requirement that every woman must cover her hair in every public circumstance. I recognize that this is contrary to the classical majority Sunni position, and I am not claiming otherwise.

Covering more remains entirely compatible with Islamic modesty and can be a beautiful expression of ḥayāʾ. But a strong cultural symbol should not automatically be confused with the minimum explicitly established by revelation.

16. The same principle should apply to men

This isn't a special rule for women.

Men also have saw'ah. Men also have a duty to lower their gaze. Men also have obligations concerning dress and bodily dignity.

The underlying principle is: What is genuinely intimate should not be casually exposed, and what is not genuinely intimate should not be artificially transformed into an absolute category of nudity merely because a particular culture has become accustomed to one dress code.

That produces a more proportionate understanding of modesty.

Conclusion

I therefore believe a coherent Qur'anic approach to modesty looks something like this:

In short:

-The private parts are genuinely private.

-Both men and women must guard their gaze and their bodies.

-Clothing provides both concealment and adornment.

-Women's breasts receive a specific Qur'anic instruction concerning covering, while broader bodily beauty belongs to the category of zīnat.

-The Qur'an establishes public modesty without necessarily providing the exhaustive anatomical dress code that later jurists developed.

-Minor practical exposure in ordinary life can fall within a broad sphere of necessity and ordinary appearance.

-Medical necessity creates an exception, but the exception should be limited to what the medical need actually requires.

-Female medical professionals should be preferred where reasonably available, particularly for intimate exposure.

-Extraordinary foreseeable events deserve particularly careful privacy planning because their unavoidable exposure is so extensive. Childbirth is the clearest example.

-The woman must necessarily be exposed to those who actually need to conduct the delivery. That does not make the delivery a spectator event.

-The husband may have a genuine reason to be present and involved, but supporting his wife does not require watching the baby's emergence. Other people have no comparable claim to observe, though close female loved ones may be present if the mother strongly so desires (within limits, i.e. not directly observing the birth).

-Necessity should not be used to turn unavoidable exposure into casual exposure.

-Ordinary life requires reasonable accommodation. Extraordinary intimacy requires deliberate protection.

And I believe childbirth should be one of the places where Muslim culture consciously preserves that distinction—not because birth is shameful, but because the human body deserves dignity precisely when it is at its most exposed, vulnerable, and physically overwhelmed.

Wallahu'alam.

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.