Many modern Muslims say Q 4:34 does not permit wife striking at all. That reformist reading should be heard respectfully.
But the classical majority reading is different. The Arabic phrase wa-ḍribūhunna was generally read as “strike them,” with limits: not severely, not on the face, and only as a final step. The honest question is how Muslims today weigh the Arabic, classical tafsīr, the Prophet’s reported practice, and modern moral concerns.
What the Qurʼān and tafsīr say
The source evidence comes in three layers.
- Q 4:34 lays out a three-step response to feared nushūz: admonish, separate in beds, then wa-ḍribūhunna.
- Tafsīr on Q 4:34 includes classical readings from al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, and Ibn Kathīr that read ḍ-r-b here as striking, with limits: not on the face, not severely, and only as a final step.
- Sunan Abū Dāwūd 2146 reports a movement from “do not strike the female servants of Allah” to later permission under conditions; ʿĀʾishah is also reported to have said the Prophet himself never struck a woman.
Where the question gets more complicated
The honest tension is between the literal-classical reading (light striking permitted) and modern reformist readings. Laleh Bakhtiar (The Sublime Quran, 2007) translates wa-ḍribūhunna as "go away from them," arguing from a less common sense of ḍ-r-b. Most academic Arabists and the entire classical tafsīr tradition read it as "strike." The reformist reading is theologically attractive but philologically a minority view. Either way, classical fiqh permitted limited corporal discipline based on this verse.
Two ways to understand the evidence
There are two broad ways Muslims understand Q 4:34 today.
The classical-limited view
A traditional reader may say:
The verse permits a limited, non-severe form of discipline as a final step, while the Prophet’s example discourages harshness.
This view gives priority to the classical reading of the Arabic.
The reformist non-striking view
Other Muslims say:
The verse should be read in a way that does not permit wife striking, because that best fits prophetic mercy and modern moral clarity.
This view is morally attractive to many readers, but it has to explain why classical tafsīr read the verb differently.
Sources to read
Click a source title to read it on an authoritative site (quran.com for the Qurʼān and tafsīr; sunnah.com for ḥadīth).
| Source | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Q 4:34 | The verse itself (multiple translations side by side). |
| Tafsīr on Q 4:34 | Classical readings (Ibn Kathīr, al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī). |
| Sunan Abū Dāwūd 2146 | The Prophet's reported instruction qualifying striking. |
| Laleh Bakhtiar, The Sublime Quran (2007) | Modern reformist reading of wa-ḍribūhunna. |
How to think about it
- Read the Arabic and classical tafsīr. The classical reading cannot be dismissed as an outsider invention.
- Read the reformist argument fairly. Modern Muslims are trying to resolve a real moral and interpretive tension.
- Keep evidence and preference separate. A reading can be morally attractive and still need strong linguistic support.
Common objections
- Doesn’t Islam forbid violence against women?
Many Muslims argue that from the Prophet’s broader example. The textual question is whether Q 4:34 itself permits limited striking in the classical reading.
- Can ḍaraba mean something other than strike?
Yes, in some contexts. The question is what it most naturally means here, and how the earliest and classical commentators understood it.
Related questions
Want a private, source-backed conversation about this question? Ask it in chat — voice or text — and the assistant will quote the verses and ḥadīth in full.