“I WANTED ONE THING AND GOD WANTEDANOTHER . . . ”

The Dilemma of the Prophetic Example and theQur’anic Injunction on Wife-Beatingjore_487 416..439

Ayesha S. Chaudhry

ABSTRACT

Chapter 4, verse 34 of the Qur’an permits husbands to physically disci-pline recalcitrant wives. Modern Muslims who find this husbandly privi-lege discomfiting often rely on Muhammad’s prophetic practice tomitigate the meaning of this verse. In light of Muhammad’s example ofnever hitting his own wives, as found in one prophetic report, theyreinterpret the verse as restricting and/or voiding a husband’s right tophysically discipline his wife. This essay provides a critical and exposi-tory survey of prophetic reports related to the husbandly privilege tophysically discipline wives. The essay argues that the modernists arecorrect in positing that Muhammad’s prophetic practice was to morallycensure husbands who hit their wives. However, taken as a whole, it isimpossible to ignore that Muhammad’s example also unilaterally upheldphysical discipline as a husband’s marital right.

KEY WORDS: Islam, Prophet Muhammad, wife-beating, prophetic practice,Sunnah, Islamic law, Qur’anic exegesis

1. Introduction

The prophetic example (Sunnah) plays a conflicted role for modernscholars as they struggle to find egalitarian interpretations of specificlegal verses in the Qur’an. On the one hand, prophetic example isconsidered “exceptional” when Muhammad’s reported behavior doesnot conform to contemporary ideas of justice and gender egalitarianism(Ali 2004, 273–91).1 This is the case when scholars confront Muham-mad’s multiple marriages. In this instance, some modern scholars citethe Qur’anic emphasis on monogamy—in the face of the inevitableinequality in polygamy—as evidence that the Qur’an desired believersto be monogamous, despite the prophetic example to the contrary. Onthe other hand, less frequently, prophetic example is privileged over

1 Kecia Ali discusses the Prophetic Example as “exceptional” and “exemplary.”

JRE 39.3:416–439. © 2011 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.

and above the Qur’an when legal prescriptions in the Qur’an itselfcause conscientious objections for Muslim scholars. An infamousexample of this is the prescription to physically discipline one’s wife/wives when there is fear of nushuz (recalcitrance/disobedience)(Chaudhry 2006, 157–70). In this instance, scholars often attempt tomitigate the prescription to physically discipline wives by citing theprophetic example. They argue that whenever Muhammad explicitlyaddressed the matter of wife-beating, he consistently sought to mollifythe unrestricted Qur’anic prescription and encouraged husbands torefrain from hitting their wives.

The dialectic between the Qur’an and prophetic practice is a mainstayin Muslim scholarship and scholars navigate their sometimes conflictingdictates when arguing for the acceptability, mitigation or rejection of theright of husbands to physically discipline their wives. The Qur’an andthe sayings of Muhammad (ah· adıth, sing. h· adıth) are two foundationalsources for Islamic scholarship, yet in the case of marital discipline, thetwo sources appear at odds. For its part, the Qur’an specifies the mannerin which husbands may discipline their wives in Chapter 4, Verse 34:

Men are qawwamun (in authority) over women, because God has fad· d· ala(preferred) some over others and because they spend of their wealth.S· alih· at (good/righteous) women are qanitat (obedient) and guard in[their husbands’] absence what God would have them guard. Concerningthose women from whom you fear nushuz (disobedience/rebellion),fa-‘iz·uhunna (admonish them), wa-hjuruhunna fı l-mad· aji‘ı (abandonthem in bed), wa-d· ribuhunna (hit them). If they obey you, do not seek ameans against them. God is most High, Great [Chaudhry 2009, 3–4; seealso, Ali 1997; and Chaudhry 2006, 158].2

2 This is my translation of Q. 4:34. I have left contentious words and phrases in theArabic and the interpretations in the parentheses are those generally offered by pre-modern exegetes and jurists. Yusuf Ali translates this verse as follows: “Men are theprotectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength)than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore therighteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allahwould have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty andill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them(lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance):For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)” (Yusuf Ali 1997). As I mention in the articleentitled “The Problems of Conscience and Hermeneutics,” “Ali displays his discomfortwith the prescription of wife-beating in this verse by taking two steps. First, heinterprets the three prescriptions of verbal admonishment, shunning in bed, and beatingto be sequential rather than simultaneous. Second, he qualifies the unqualified Qur’anicprescription of beating by adding ‘lightly’ in parentheses. Ali’s hermeneutic move is anexample of how the explicit textual command to beat women who commit nushuz violatesnotions of justice and gender egalitarianism that many contemporary scholars bring tothe text. These conscientious objections arise in part because they perceive this verse to

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 417

There are several words and phrases in this verse that have contestedmeanings and were the subject of extensive discussion in the exegeticaland juridical discussions in the pre-modern period (Chaudhry 2009,chap. 2, 3 and 4; see Bauer 2008, chap. 3 and 4). Such words andphrases include God’s “preference” (fad· d· ala) of men over women, theobject of obedience for “obedient” wives (qanitat), and what it means to“fear” (khawf) a wife’s disobedience (nushuz). According to conventionalreadings of this verse, the three steps that men should undertake ifthey fear nushuz from their wives are: to admonish them(fa‘iz·uhunna), shun them in bed (wa-hjuruhunna fi’l-mad· aji‘), and/orstrike or beat them (wa’d· ribuhunna). While this verse is complex andcontested, the focus of this essay is the contrast between the prescrip-tion of physical discipline of wives in the Qur’an and the propheticexample. Modern Muslim scholars are correct in their assessment thatthere is a disjoint between this prescription in the divine writ andrecorded prophetic practice.

Prophetic practice (Sunnah) formed an integral part of the inter-pretive framework for many Islamic sciences (Brown 2009, 3; see also,Weiss 1992, chap. 4). Each h· adıth has two main components that verifyits authenticity and veracity, namely the chain of transmission (isnad)and the text (matn). The chain of transmission “trace(s) the matn, ortext, of a h· adıth back to the Prophet” (Brown 2009, 4). Muslim scholarsregularly drew upon the texts of ah· adıth without regard to the authen-ticity of their chains of transmission. They were willing to rely onah· adıth of dubious authenticity so long as the message within the textwas sound or served their purposes. This was true even after thecrystallization of standards for h· adıth criticism (Brown 2009, 108).Given the centrality of h· adıth texts in the Islamic sciences, this studydoes not attempt to trace the lineage of h· adıth texts, but ratherprovides a critical expository survey of extant ah· adıth broadly relatedto the issue of husbands hitting wives. Though the contemporary SunnıMuslim community considers six to nine h· adıth collections to becanonical,3 this study is not limited to those collections. This strategy

stand in counter-distinction to other verses in the Qur’an that promote reciprocity,mutual love and respect in marriage, and encourage the establishment of justice”(Chaudhry 2006, 158).

3 There is some debate surrounding precisely which six to nine books form the canon.Brown writes that “the flexible boundaries of the hadith canon make sense when weconsider one of its two primary functions. Even as early as 800 CE, al-Shafi‘ı had saidthat it was impossible for one person to know all the hadiths in circulation. If theProphet’s Sunnah was essentially boundless, the Muslim community needed a tangibleand manageable selection of hadith books to represent its core. Whether the canon wasfive or six books, or exactly which books these were, did not affect this function” (Brown2009, 39–40).

418 Journal of Religious Ethics

is adopted because pre-modern Muslim scholars did not limit them-selves to the canonical collections even after their authority wasestablished (Brown 2009, 38).

This article undertakes a survey of ah· adıth that use any permuta-tion of the word d-r-b (to hit, to strike) in relation to husbands strikingwives, excluding all ah· adıth in which either the grammatical construc-tion or the textual context of d-r-b connotes something other thanbeating.4 Also excluded, for the purposes of this study, are ah· adıthexclusively related to hitting servants or slaves. Those ah· adıth areretained when they self-consciously offer direct analogies to hittingwives. In the same spirit, ah· adıth related to men hitting their daugh-ters or parents hitting their children are not addressed.5

Prophetic practice related to the physical discipline of wives will beconsidered through a binary vision of Sunnah; it will consider ah· adıththat attribute to Muhammad (a) specific behaviors and practices withregard to physically disciplining his own wives and his verdicts in thecapacity of a judge on matters related to wife-beating (sunnah fi‘lıya)and (b) spoken opinions on the topic of hitting wives (sunnah qawlıya).6

4 d-r-b has many different meanings in the ah· adıth literature. Some of the meaningsfor d-r-b used in the ah· adıth literature are: to walk, to run, to rape, to whip/flog, to slap,to present an example, to behead, to play the daff, to knock on a door, to wear a hijab,to pitch a tent, to apply a poll tax. The verb d-r-b does not have most of these meaningswithout a specific direct object, preposition, or other verbal indicator. In this way it isvery much like the English verb “to strike,” which can be used in the phrases “strike apose,” “strike a bargain,” “strike a similitude,” and so forth—but never has thesemeanings in isolation. This usage is relevant to the arguments that are made bycontemporary scholars such as Abusulayman and Bakhtiar who argue that d-r-b by itselfcould mean “to go away” (Abusulayman 2003, 15–21; Bakhtiar 2007, introduction).

5 Most of the ah· adıth on this topic relate to Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, hitting hisdaughter and Muhammad’s wife ‘A’ishah, wherein the Prophet verbally disapproved ofhis behavior, though he forgave him with a warning. The h· adıth sources consulted forthis paper are listed in Chaudhry 2009, 26.

6 A prophetic report regarding Muhammad’s sunnah fi‘lıya that is not considered inthis section is a report used by scholars, such as Abusulayman and Bakhtiar, to translatethe imperative of “wa-d· ribuhunna” to mean “to go away” as opposed “to hit.” In thisreport Muhammad was said to have left his wives for a month when he was displeasedwith them. These scholars argue that since Muhammad preferred to leave his wivesinstead of hitting them, his prophetic example illustrates that Q. 4:34 did not instructmen to hit their recalcitrant wives, but rather instructed husbands to leave their wives.This report is not discussed in the paper because it is not overtly linked to Q. 4:34 anddoes not discuss physical disciplinary action against wives (Abusulayman 2003, 21;Bakhtiar 2007, introduction, esp. xxvi). Interestingly, this report emerges in AbuH· ayyan’s commentary of Q. 4:34, but he understood it to apply to the second prescriptionof Q. 4:34—abandonment in bed—rather than the third prescription. Muhammad did notdescribe his own behavior as fitting into one of the three categories in Q. 4:34 ofadmonishment, abandonment, or hitting (Chaudhry 2009, chap. 3).

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 419

It will not examine Muhammad’s passive approval (sunnah taqrırıya),since that would require an argument from silence, which is beyondthe parameters of this study.

While many ah· adıth reflect a discomfort on the part of Muhammadwith the prescription or permissibility of wife-beating, most ah· adıth atthe same time assume the right of men to physically discipline theirwives. The ah· adıth further provide directives regarding the appropri-ate procedure and etiquette of physically disciplining one’s wife. Thisessay argues that the reported prophetic example is complex, in that itoffers believing husbands a range of models with regard to the physicaldisciplining of wives. The prophetic example both encourages physi-cally disciplining recalcitrant wives, and at the same time potentiallyrestricts husbands from ever physically disciplining their wives. Addi-tionally, through his complicated response to the legal prescription inthe Qur’an, the prophetic example also provides a flexible definition of“obedience.” By not “obeying” or “submitting” to the command in Q.4:34 in a narrow sense, some of Muhammad’s reported actions andwords offer believing Muslims an expansive meaning of submission andobedience to divine prescriptions.

2. Muhammad’s Actions (sunnah fi‘lıya)

There are two prophetic reports that discuss Muhammad’s personalstance on hitting his own wives. Highlighting his unease with hittinghis wives, it was reported from ‘A’ishah bt. Abı Bakr (d. circa 58AH/678 CE)—Muhammad’s youngest wife—that Muhammad never hitanyone, neither a woman nor a servant.7 The most common text, asrecorded in the S· ah· ıh· of Muslim (d. 261 AH/875 CE), reads:

The Prophet of God, may peace and blessings be upon him, never hitanyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, except whenstruggling in the path of God [Muslim 1994, 4:1447; see also, Marin 2003,17; and Chaudhry 2009, 39].

In this h· adıth, ‘A’ishah asserted that Muhammad exercised a generalpolicy of non-violence, except when he was engaged in religiouslymotivated warfare. Her emphasis that he never hit anyone with hishand, “neither a woman, nor a slave,” is arresting. The parallel betweenwomen and slaves suggests that these two groups would be the obvious

7 The text of this h· adıth varies and often includes other behaviors of Muhammad,such as his not seeking vengeance against anyone except for God’s sake and alwayschoosing the easier of two matters—unless the easier matter was sinful. However, theportion of this h· adıth that is relevant to this study was generally reported in the exactsame wording, with only minor variations.

420 Journal of Religious Ethics

recipients of violence. Women and slaves represented lower strata of asocial hierarchy wherein it was commonplace for those privileged in thehierarchy to behave violently towards those lower in ranking.8 ThatMuhammad refrained from this otherwise acceptable behavior, as amatter of general practice, was remarkable and therefore emphasized.

Without challenging a hierarchical view of society, this report con-tained a protective message for weaker members of society by offeringa non-violent model to those in power; that is, to husbands and masterswho had disciplinary authority over wives and slaves. This h· adıth issignificant because it displays an apparent disconnect between thedivine injunction of Q. 4:34 to physically discipline recalcitrant wivesand the prophetic practice of being generally non-violent regardless ofcircumstance. If, in this instance, prophetic practice is considered“exemplary” rather than “exceptional” (Ali 2004, 276), then propheticpractice and Q. 4:34 offer two different models of behavior for believingmen. The other possibility is that Muhammad’s wives never requireddiscipline. However, much of chapter 66 of the Qur’an is devoted to thedivine censure of some of Muhammad’s wives which, at the very least,poses a formidable challenge to this claim (Q. 66:1–5).

The above-mentioned h· adıth stands in counter-distinction to anotherh· adıth, which, although considered to have a weak chain of transmis-sion, was nonetheless recorded by Muslim.9 ‘A’ishah reported that shenoticed Muhammad sneaking away in the middle of night, so shesecretly followed him. When Muhammad learned that she had spied onhim, he struck (lahada) her in the chest such that it caused her pain(awja‘at) (Muslim 2000, 413; Silvers 2006, 179). This account contrastswith the previous one wherein Muhammad is said to have never hitanyone, since in this instance Muhammad hit his wife hard enough tocause her pain. Together, these ah· adıth display a complicated relation-ship between the prophetic example and the divine command to strikedisobedient wives (Chaudhry 2006, 184–205).10 The versatility of h· adıthliterature is especially visible here, where mutually contradictoryreports often co-existed in the corpus of widely accepted h· adıth texts.

2.1 Muhammad’s legal verdicts for abused wives

There are three accounts of women who were hit by their husbandsand sought justice from Muhammad in his role as an adjudicator.

8 Yossef Rapoport explains that slavery was not stigmatized. He writes, “Slavery,rather than being a contemptible institution, was the exemplary patriarchal model, withthe bond between a master and his slave the organizing principle of the military elite”(Rapoport 2005, 52).

9 This narration was considered weak al-Nawawı (al-Nawawı 1998, 7:36–37).10 I translate nushuz as disobedience, since this was the predominant interpretation

of it by pre-modern exegetes and jurists.

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 421

These reports convey both the legal acceptability for husbands to hitwives and Muhammad’s personal disapproval of husbands who hittheir wives. In the first report Muhammad expressed his dislike fordomestic abuse by considering it a legitimate cause for divorce. Thabitb. Qays11 reportedly beat his wife, Jamılah bt. ‘Abd Allah, so severelythat he broke her hand. When Jamılah’s brother complained toMuhammad about this, the latter initiated a divorce on Jamılah’sbehalf, saying to Thabit “Take what you owe her and release her”(al-Nasa’ı 1991, 3:383; Abu Dawud 1996, 1:267).12

This h· adıth is generally recorded in the Book of Divorce, as opposedto the Book of Marriage, presumably because the outcome was thedissolution of the marriage. Since the beating resulted in broken bones,it crossed the line of acceptable physical discipline and thereby con-stituted grounds for divorce (Chaudhry 2009, chap. 3 and 4).13 Theissue of nushuz, or acceptable cause for physical discipline, does notemerge as a relevant issue in this story. There appears to be anunderstanding on the part of all parties involved—Jamılah bt. ‘AbdAllah, her brother, Muhammad, and even Thabit b. Qays—that whatQays did was unacceptable and warranted divorce. Muhammad con-sidered Thabit’s beating abusive and did not ask what incited Qays tobeat Jamılah to begin with, nor did he try to adjudicate between thetwo. Rather, he took action to protect a wife against a man who hadbeaten her so severely that he broke her hand. Still, Jamılah did notreceive any compensation or retaliation for being beaten so severely byThabit; Thabit himself was not punished for his actions, other thanhaving to divorce his wife. He was offered a divorce with little personalcost, since he was permitted to re-claim what he was owed fromJamılah. Nevertheless, this h· adıth offers a possible limit on the physi-cal discipline of wives by suggesting that it ought not to result inbroken bones.

11 Generally I do not provide death dates for Companions of Muhammad, since theyare mostly speculative and because their roles in these reports are limited to uncoveringMuhammad’s stances on particular issues.

12 “khudh alladhı laha ‘alaika wa khallı sabılaha.” This phrase seems to assume aknowledge of classical legal terminology and jurisprudence. If this knowledge isassumed, the translation could refer to a wife initiated divorce (khul‘), where thehusband is offered his unpaid dowry (mahr) to divorce his wife. Some h· adıth compilers,such as al-Nasa’ı, did consider this to be a khul‘, since he labeled it “Bab ‘iddat‘l-mukhtali‘ah.” According to him, the subject of this h· adıth is the length of the waitingperiod (‘iddah) and not necessarily that hitting is a ground for divorce (Al-Nasa’ı 1991,2:383).

13 Broken bones were a common limitation placed on the disciplinary power ofhusbands over wives in exegetical and juridical works.

422 Journal of Religious Ethics

There is another documented h· adıth wherein the wife of the Com-panion al-Walıd b. ‘Uqbah complained to Muhammad about al-Walıdhitting her:

The wife of al-Walıd b. ‘Uqbah came to the Prophet of God (may peaceand blessings be upon him) and complained that her husband hit her.[Muhammad] said to her, “Return to him and tell him ‘The Prophet ofGod has taken me under his protection (qad ajaranı).’” So she went awayfor an hour or so and then returned, saying, “O Prophet of God, he didnot desist [from beating] me.”14 Muhammad cut a fringe of his robe andhanded it to her, saying, “Tell him, ‘The Prophet of God has taken meunder his protection, and this is a fringe from his robe.’” She left for anhour and returned, saying, “O Prophet of God, he only increased inbeating me.” Then the Prophet of God raised his hands and prayed, “OAllah, you deal with al-Walıd, for he has sinned against me twice.” Herepeated this two or three times [al-Haythamı 2001, 2:262–63].

There is no discussion in this h· adıth regarding the cause or intensityof al-Walıd’s beating. The unnamed wife of al-Walıd bin ‘Uqbah inde-pendently appears on the scene and complains to Muhammad of beingbeaten by her husband. Muhammad sides with al-Walıd’s wife, offeringher protection and asking al-Walıd to desist from his behavior—usingal-Walıd’s wife as the bearer of this message. It is unclear whatMuhammad meant when he took al-Walıd’s wife under his protection.This protection did not result in her actually being protected fromal-Walıd’s beatings, since Muhammad returned her to him twice, andshe was beaten further each time. He did not offer her retaliation,compensation, or divorce. It is surprising that Muhammad did notexpect al-Walıd to become enraged and beat his wife further uponhearing that she had complained about him to Muhammad. It is alsointriguing that Muhammad did not ask al-Walıd to appear before himpersonally, whether to hold him accountable for his actions or toadjudicate between the couple. Rather, he repeatedly sent al-Walıd’salready abused wife back to him with messages.

When al-Walıd’s wife returned to Muhammad complaining thatal-Walıd had only intensified his beating of her, Muhammad sent herback with a piece of his robe. The physical evidence of Muhammad’srobe was ineffective in persuading al-Walıd to discontinue beating hiswife. She returned once again, complaining of even more beating andMuhammad raised his hands and cursed al-Walıd, saying thatal-Walıd had sinned—not against his wife—but against Muhammadhimself. Muhammad’s complaint to God against al-Walıd does notappear to be directly motivated by al-Walıd’s abusive behavior against

14 “la aqla‘a ‘annı.” In one narration she states both times, “He did nothing but hitme harder (ma zadanı illa d· arban).”

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 423

his wife, but rather by al-Walıd’s blatant disregard for Muhammad’swishes. The thrust of this report implies that Muhammad’s cursing ofal-Walıd had negative consequences for the latter, at least in theHereafter. Al-Walıd did not face any social or legal consequences forbeating his wife or for denying Muhammad’s requests. The fate ofal-Walıd’s wife remains open-ended in this report because it is notclear if she ultimately returned to her abusive husband or if beingunder Muhammad’s protection granted her some type of refuge. Giventhat Muhammad sent her back to al-Walıd twice, where there was ahigh probability of her being beaten, especially the second time, it canbe speculated that she was forced to return to her husband withoutmeaningful protection.

At least in the text of this report, Muhammad did not take anyaction to protect al-Walıd’s wife from her husband’s violence. AlthoughMuhammad’s stance in this h· adıth conveys strong disapproval of menwho hit their wives, this disapproval does not translate into a juridicalopinion that prohibited the act of beating one’s wife, or legislate apunishment for husbands, that would safeguard wives from violence atthe hands of their husbands.

The third prophetic report considered here does not appear in any ofthe h· adıth collections in this study, but is widely cited by exegetesbecause it is considered to be the incident that precipitated the rev-elation of Q. 4:34. Since this report is widespread in the exegeticalliterature and contains a text and chain of transmission, it warrants abrief reference here (Chaudhry 2009, chap. 2). The occasion of revela-tion (asbab al-nuzul) literature reports that H· abıbah bt. Zayd wasslapped by her husband, Qays b. Rabı‘, which prompted her to com-plain to Muhammad. In some narrations, it is reported that the markof the slap was still evident on her face when she complained. Muham-mad judged in H· abıbah’s favor, deciding that she deserved restitutionfrom Qays. However, before any retaliation could be established, Q.4:34 was revealed, causing Muhammad to revoke his decision. Muham-mad allegedly responded to Q. 4:34 by saying, “I wanted one thing, andGod wanted another.” Some narrations further report that he said,“and what God wanted is best.” It can be speculated that this adden-dum was added in order to make Muhammad’s response to the divinecommand more appropriately submissive, by verbally approving God’scorrection of his earlier decision.

Together, the above-mentioned ah· adıth illustrate that Muhammad’spersonal behavior (sunnah fi‘lıya) displays both a disapproval of hus-bands hitting their wives and a model wherein it is acceptable to hitone’s wife, as long as the hitting is not excessive. In these ah· adıth,Muhammad’s words assert the moral degeneracy of wife-beaters, butdo not question the legal right of husbands to beat their wives.

424 Journal of Religious Ethics

3. Prophetic Speech (sunnah qawlı)

3.1 Moderate hitting as a marital right

The majority of the ah· adıth attributed to Muhammad regarding theissue of hitting wives fall in the category of his spoken opinion on thetopic. The right of husbands to physically discipline wives and the rightof wives to have that physical discipline be moderate are embedded inthe basic conception of the marital structure in h· adıth literature. In ah· adıth that emphasizes the intertwined nature of marital rights andthe disciplinary power of husbands over wives, a Companion15 askedMuhammad,

“What are the rights of our wives over us?”16 Muhammad replied, “Thatyou feed her when you eat, and clothe her as you clothe yourself, and donot hit her in the face, do not disfigure her (lit. make her ugly)17 and donot abandon her except in the house” [Abu Dawud 1996, 2:110;al-Bayhaqı 2004, 2:79; Muslim 1994, 3:1333; and al-Nawawı 1982, 163].18

In light of Q.4:34, this h· adıth specifies the privileges assigned tohusbands in the Qur’anic text. Husbands are held responsible for thefinancial welfare of their wives by feeding and clothing them. Theunqualified disciplinary power of husbands in Q. 4:34 is restricted byprohibiting husbands from hitting their wives in the face, prohibitingthem from disfiguring their wives, and limiting the abandonment ofwives to their homes. The disciplinary power of husbands is alsoexpanded in this h· adıth beyond the Qur’anic text because the legiti-mating cause(s) for such discipline are left unspecified.

Despite the qualifying nature of this h· adıth, there is no significanttension between prophetic speech and the Qur’anic text with regard tothe physical discipline of wives. There is tension between this h· adıthand Muhammad’s personal behavior, where he is recorded as display-ing displeasure with husbands hitting their wives. The reports mightbe harmonized if Muhammad’s personal behavior were considered to beexceptional, rather than exemplary.

15 This question was posed by different individuals in the various narrations. Mostoften, it was asked by the father of Hakım b. Mu‘awiyah al-Qushayrı.

16 The major variations of the question are: “Ya rasul l-llah, ma h· aqq zawjat ah· adina‘alayhı?” (al-Nawawı 1982, 163) or “Ya rasul allah, nisa’una ma na’tı minhunna wa manadhar?” (Abu Dawud 1996, 2:110).

17 Violence is implied in the context of the phrase “la tuqabbih.” It is mentioned in thecontext of disciplinary action and appears immediately after Muhammad advised men toavoid hitting their wives on the face. In this context it makes sense to translate it as “donot disfigure.”

18 As a point of interest, there are similar narrations regarding the rights of slavesover their masters—that the masters feed and clothe them as they feed and clothethemselves. However, those narrations do not discuss the beating of slaves.

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 425

3.2 Legitimate causes for physical discipline

The command in Q. 4:34 for husbands to hit their wives is a resultof the fear of wifely nushuz. If husbands fear the nushuz of their wives,they are commanded to admonish them, abandon them in bed, and/orbeat them. The meaning of wifely ‘nushuz’ was historically contested,but is most broadly interpreted as “disobedience” in pre-modernexegetical and juridical works (Chaudhry 2009, chap. 2 and 4). It isimportant to note that while Q. 4:34 appears to discuss beating in theform of the physical discipline of wives, this is not always the case inthe ah· adıth. As seen above, prophetic reports often discuss the hus-bandly privilege to hit wives without reflecting on the disciplinarynature of the hitting and without specifying the cause(s) that mightlegitimate such hitting. The beating of wives is a broader category inprophetic traditions, and can be corrective, punitive, or abusive.19 Twojustifications for physically disciplining wives, offered in h· adıth litera-ture, are wives’ sharp tongues and their permitting strangers into theirhusbands’ homes or beds.

According to a prophetic report, some people were visiting withMuhammad when the Companion S· abrah sought advice regardingtrouble he was having with his wife. He complained to Muhammadthat his wife possessed “contemptuous” speech (al-Bayhaqı 2004,7:303). In another narration, S· abrah further described his wife’stongue as “long” (al-Bayhaqı 2004, 2:78). Muhammad responded,“Divorce her.” S· abrah protested this advice, saying “I have a child withher and I have companionship with her.” The Prophet replied, “admon-ish her or talk to her, and if there is good in her then accept her [as sheis], and do not hit your wife as you would hit your female slave”(al-Bayhaqı 2004, 2:78; al-Suyut·ı 1994, 8:239).

The unpleasant character of a wife, manifested through abusive orcontemptuous speech, is an acceptable cause for divorce in this h· adıth.It is noteworthy that Muhammad suggested divorce as the initialrecourse when S· abrah complained of a sharp-tongued wife. This advicecontrasts with that found in Q. 4:34–35, where adjudication and divorceare presented as options only after the three prescriptions of admonish-ment, abandonment in bed, and/or beating. When S· abrah was dissatis-fied with the suggestion of divorce—ostensibly because he had a childwith the woman and enjoyed her company—Muhammad advisedadmonishment and conversation.

The implication of this h· adıth on wife-beating is contentious. On theone hand, although Muhammad did not explicitly advise S· abrah tophysically discipline his wife, it might be argued that he considered it

19 I am grateful to Kecia Ali for the categorization of these three forms of beating,which emerged in discussions surrounding this work.

426 Journal of Religious Ethics

to be a legitimate course of action. This is evident in Muhammad’sadvising S· abrah not to beat his wife as he would a female slave.Muhammad did not prohibit S· abrah from hitting his wife, but onlyinstructed that this hitting should be qualitatively different from howhe would hit a female slave. On the other hand, it may be argued thatthis h· adıth portrays Muhammad’s disapproval of wife-beating in twoways. First, by saying that S· abrah should not hit his wife as he woulda slave, Muhammad might have been suggesting that S· abrah shouldavoid hitting his wife altogether. The physical discipline of a wife is notprescribed in a positive injunction (“hit her”) but only in a negativeexhortation (“do not hit her as you would a female slave”). Second, thisreport indicates that Muhammad preferred divorce to the physicaldiscipline of a wife. In his advice to S· abrah, Muhammad did not followthe prescriptions of Q. 4:34. He first advised divorce, and then workedbackwards to advise verbal exhortation. He only qualified any potentialphysical discipline S· abrah might engage in, along with suggesting thatS· abrah ought to accept his wife as she was, even if her behavior maywarrant divorce.

The tension raised by this h· adıth, between prophetic speech and thetext of Q. 4:34, was not lost on the h· adıth scholar al-T· ah· awı (d. 321AH/933 CE). In his commentary of this h· adıth, al-T· ah· awı discussesMuhammad’s advice to S· abrah, specifically with regard to his stipula-tion that S· abrah should “not hit his wife as he would a female slave.”Arguing against the potential interpretation that Muhammad mighthave prohibited S· abrah from hitting his wife altogether, al-Tah· awıwrites that this admonishment does not constitute a prohibitionagainst husbands hitting their wives. Rather, he contends that a man“should hit [his wife] in a manner that is different [from hitting hisfemale slave].” Al-Tah· awı argues that this is the only possible meaningof this admonishment, since God has permitted the hitting/beating ofwives (d· arbihinna) in Q. 4:34 (al-Tah· awı 1994, 6:13). To support hispoint, al-Tah· awı draws upon Muhammad’s H· ajj Sermon, which will beconsidered further momentarily. Ruling out the possibility of contra-dictory behavior on Muhammad’s part, al-Tah· awi argues that Muham-mad’s unambiguous permission for husbands to hit their wives in theH· ajj sermon proves that Muhammad only meant to restrict S· abrahfrom hitting his wife in an extreme manner. According to al-Tah· awı, aslong as the hitting is non-extreme (ghayr mubarrih· ), husbands arepermitted to hit their wives. Despite al-Tah· awı’s interpretation of thish· adıth, it is worth noting, that this h· adıth itself does not seem to haveany exegetical element. Rather than commenting on or clarifying verse4:34, it seems essentially oblivious to the verse.

The H· ajj Sermon was delivered by Muhammad during his pilgrim-age to Mecca; Muslim historians place this event in March or April of

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 427

the year 10 AH (632 CE) (Ibn H· isham 1987, 4:188). This sermon wasdelivered on Mount ‘Arafat at the climax of the h· ajj. In this sermon,Muhammad offered general advice to believers. Interestingly, one ofthe issues he touched on in this sermon was marital rights. Onenarration reports that he said:

Fear God concerning women, indeed you take them as a trust from God,and intercourse with them has been made permissible for you by God’sword. Your rights over them are that they do not give your beds (furusha-kum) to anyone that you dislike. If they do this, then hit them in anon-extreme manner (ghayr mubarrih· ). Their rights over you are thatyou feed them and clothe them in a manner that is according to custom(bi l-ma‘ruf) [al-Bayhaqı 1994, 2:257–60; Ibn Hisham 1987, 4:188; seealso Guillaume 1955, 651–52; Marin 2003, 20; and Bauer 2008, 89].

The second narration is more extensive and reads:

Fear God concerning women, indeed they are for you as captives (‘awan),they do not have ownership over themselves. And they have rights overyou and you have rights over them. They should not give your beds(furushakum) to anyone other than you and they should not permitanyone that you dislike into your homes (buyutikum). If you fear nushuzfrom them, then admonish them, and abandon them in bed, and hit themwithout causing extreme pain (ghayr mubarrih· ). And [their rights overyou are that] you provide for them and clothe them in a manner that isappropriate. Indeed you take them as a trust from God, since you seek tomake their private parts permissible to you with God Almighty’s word,and the one who has a trust must return it to the one who entrusted itto him [al-Bayhaqı 1994, 2:257].

Similar to ah· adıth encountered earlier, these two prophetic reportsassume the authority of husbands to physically discipline their wivesas a basic spousal right. According to both narrations husbands canphysically discipline their wives if they allow those whom their hus-bands dislike into their beds or homes. Although there is no explicitmention of sexual disloyalty in this narration, it is implied through theuse of the word “furush” (sing. farsh), which refers to beds.20 Incontrast to the earlier prophetic report which restricts the husbandlyprivilege to discipline wives to bodily location (avoid the face), theseah· adıth limit physical discipline by both intensity (non-extreme) andcause (allowing those one’s husband dislikes into their homes/beds).

A noteworthy variation between the two narrations is that thesecond narration alludes to the wording of Q. 4:34, whereas the first

20 The distinction between “beds” (furush) and “homes” is significant and meritsfurther study. It is explored at some length in Chaudhry 2009, 52–58. Some narrationsmention open lewdness (fah· ishat mubayyinah) as wifely behavior that requires hus-bandly discipline (al-Nawawı 1982, 1:163).

428 Journal of Religious Ethics

does not appear to do so. In the first narration, Muhammad prescribedhitting in a non-extreme manner (ghayr mubarrih· ) as a stand-aloneinjunction. There are no intervening steps between the wife’s action ofallowing someone whom the husband dislikes into his bed and thehusband’s hitting his wife in a non-extreme manner. There is also noexplicit mention of nushuz. In contrast, the wording of the secondnarration is almost verbatim from Q. 4:34, such that husbands whofear wifely nushuz are to admonish, abandon in bed, and beat theirwives. However, the text of this h· adıth differs from Q. 4:34 in that itqualifies the unqualified prescription of beating in Q. 4:34 as “non-extreme” (ghayr mubarrih· ). The close mirroring of the text of Q. 4:34in this narration makes the qualification significant, since it requiresa departure from the text of Q. 4:34. By qualifying the unqualifiedprescription of the physical discipline of wives in Q. 4:34, one can arguethat this h· adıth places less confidence in those men who undertake thephysical discipline of their wives than did the Qur’anic text.

Still, no definition of “non-extreme” (ghayr mubarrih· ) hitting isprovided in discussions related to hitting wives in the h· adıth litera-ture.21 Deliberation surrounding the definition of “ghayr mubarrih· ”appears rather in reports related to the punishment of lashing as aconsequence for alcohol consumption. In one report, a man was orderedto be whipped in manner that is described as “ghayr mubarrih· .” TheCompanion and narrator of this report, Abu Majid, asked, “what is‘ghayr mubarrih· ’?” He was told that it is “a hitting that is neithersevere/intense (shadıd) nor is it negligible/light (hayyin)” (al-Bayhaqı1994, 8:326). It is not clear whether Muhammad referred to this sortof beating when he advised husbands to hit their wives in a ghayrmubarrih· manner. Nevertheless, it is significant that the descriptor“ghayr mubarrih· ” is used to characterize the nature of both the lashingmeted out to a drunkard and the punishment for a disobedient(nashizah) wife.

3.3 Prophetic censure of men who hit their wives

It is reported that the Companion ‘Umar b. al-Khat·t·ab soughtMuhammad’s permission for men to hit their wives. Although thish· adıth is sometimes cited in discussions surrounding Q. 4:34, the verse

21 Mahmoud translates ghayr mubarrih· as hitting that is “not grievous.” He does notexplain what he bases this translation on (Mahmoud 2006, 544). Bauer mentions thatalthough ghayr mubarrih· is “often translated as ‘non-violent,’ hitting is intrinsicallyviolent.” Bauer’s translation of ghayr mubarrih· as “without causing severe pain” basedon Kazimirsky’s translation of mubarrih· as “very harsh, very painful, causing intensepain” is more accurate (Bauer 2008, 114). For the sake of convenience, ghayr mubarrih·is translated in this work as “non-extreme.”

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 429

is not directly referenced in the variations of this h· adıth.22 The mostconcise variant of this h· adıth reads:

The Messenger of God—may peace be upon him—prohibited (naha) menfrom hitting women. They complained [of this], so he permitted [hus-bands] to hit [their wives] [Ibn Rahawayh 2002, 5:112].

This report begins with Muhammad prohibiting husbands from hittingwives. We do not know what prompted this prohibition, or why mencomplained about it. All that is known is that men complained againstthe prohibition and were granted permission to hit their wives. In thistext, Muhammad did not offer any qualifications to the type or extentof beating permitted. Could husbands only hit their wives for disci-plinary purposes? How intensely were they permitted to hit theirwives? In some narrations, the wording is slightly different from themore common “he permitted them to hit [their wives],”23 and statesinstead that Muhammad “granted [husbands] license” to hit theirwives,24 or he “commanded” men to hit their wives.25

In a more prolix variation of this h· adıth, Muhammad reportedlysaid:

The Prophet of God, may peace and blessings be upon him said, “Do nothit the maidservants of Allah (ima’ allah).” As a result the womenbecame audacious (dha’ira)26 and they [exhibited] offensive behavior(sa’at akhlaquhunna) toward their husbands. Then ‘Umar, may God bepleased with him, said [to Muhammad], “O Prophet of God, since youprohibited [husbands] from hitting their [wives], the women have startedto behave offensively and their behavior is threatening to their husbands.

22 Al-Bayhaqı made the argument that this h· adıth was connected to Q. 4:34. Hewrote that Muhammad prohibited husbands from hitting their wives before Q. 4:34 wasrevealed and then permitted husbands to hit them after the verse was revealed, but stillpreferred that husbands not hit their wives (al-Bayhaqı 1994, 5:433–35). It is notable,however, that there is nothing in the h· adıth itself to suggest that it explicitly refers tothe revelation of a divine commandment on this subject; the h· adıth does not seem to beexegetical.

23 “fa-adhina lahum” (Ibn H· ibban 1987, 9:491).24 “fa-rakhkhas·a fı d· arbihinna” (Abu Dawud 1996, 2:111 and al-Darimı 2000, 3:1424–

25).25 “fa amara bi-d· arbihinna” (Ibn Majah 1998, 3:401).26 Ibn Manz·ur (d. 711/1311), in his Lisan al-‘Arab provided a basic definition of

dha’ira as aversion, estrangement, with overtones of antipathy. He also defines dh-’-r,when applied to a woman’s behavior toward her husband to mean that “she commitnushuz and changed her behavior” (nashazat wa-taghayyara khuluquha).” This is aninterpretation derived from this same h· adıth under discussion and might reflect laterassumptions about the behavior that would lead a man to beat his wife. He added furtherthat in the context of this h· adıth, wives displayed antipathy to their husbands, theycommit nushuz and became bold and audacious (nafarna wa nashazna wa-jtara’na) (IbnManz·ur 2003).

430 Journal of Religious Ethics

The Prophet said, “Then hit them (fa-d· ribuhunna).” Then the people hittheir wives that night, and many women complained [to Muhammad]about the hitting. The Prophet said, “Tonight, the house of Muh· ammadwas surrounded by seventy women, all of them complaining about beinghit. I swear by God, you will not find [those who hit their wives] the bestof you” [al-Bayhaqı 1994, 2:257–60; see also Chaudhry 2009, 60].

According to this narration of the h· adıth, a problem resulted fromMuhammad’s prohibition against hitting the “maidservants of God.”The term “ima’ allah” is the female equivalent of “‘abd allah” andsuggests parity between the genders by emphasizing women’s status asequal members of the Muslim community before the eyes of God.27

Even so, given the usage of this phrase in a context wherein husbandswere ultimately granted permission to hit their wives, any suggestedparity between the genders is negated by the disciplinary power ofhusbands over wives. As in the previous narration, Muhammad ini-tially prohibited husbands from hitting their wives, without any expla-nation for what might have motivated this ban. Men complained aboutthe prohibition—in this narration they were represented by ‘Umar—who specified particular reasons for why Muhammad ought to recon-sider his prohibition. He contended that after the prophetic decreeprohibiting hitting, women began to behave offensively such that menfound their behavior audacious. In his Lisan l-‘Arab Ibn Manz·urdiscusses “dha’ira” with regard to this h· adıth specifically, and inter-prets it to mean wifely nushuz, which he describes as a change inbehavior, a display of aversion and estrangement. Other narrationssupport the interpretation of women’s behavior as audacious bydescribing the behavior of women, in response to Muhammad’s prohi-bition against hitting them, as “spoiled/corrupt” (fasadna) (al-Suyut·ı1994, 1:287) or “forward” (jara’a ‘ala al-azwajihinna) (Abu Dawud1996, 2:111).28

Muhammad considered the reasons offered by ‘Umar—the auda-cious, offensive behavior on the part of wives—sufficient to reverse hisprohibition. He responded: “Hit them” (al-Bayhaqı 1994, 2:257–60).Again, he did not qualify his command for husbands to hit their wives.He did not specify how intensely husbands should hit their wives, nordid he outline any intermediary steps husbands might take—such asadmonishment and abandonment in bed—before resorting to hitting.

Once Muhammad granted men permission to hit their wives, menavailed themselves of the permission to hit wives that very night. In

27 This was pointed out by Marion Katz. She offered an example of this in the h· adıthin which Muhammad is reported to have ordered men not to prevent the female servantsof God from attending the mosque, “la tamna‘u ima’ allah masajid allah.”

28 Marin offers a translation here that states that women started to act “as if theywere superior to men” (Marin 2003, 18).

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 431

response to being beaten, women congregated around Muhammad’shouse complaining about their husbands. The women surroundingMuhammad’s house forced him to confront the consequences of hispermission for men to strike their wives. Muhammad was displeased,and, although he had granted men permission to hit their wives earlier,he now censured them for doing so. He said that the men who hit theirwives were not good men, or the best of men. In one narration of thish· adıth, he said, “The best of you will not hit [your wives]” (al-Bayhaqı1994, 2:257–60). Al-Darimı’s narration of this h· adıth cites Muhammadas saying: “I do not like to see a man so influenced by his anger, soviolent in his vigilance/control of his woman that he kills her” (IbnRahawayh 2002, 5:112; see also Marin 2003, 18–19; and Chaudhry2009, 63).29 Al-Suyut·ı (d. 911 AH/1505 CE) cites a unique variation ofthis h· adıth wherein Muhammad stated that “only the worst of you willhit,” instead of “the best of you will not hit” (al-Suyut·ı 1994, 1:459).30

It is notable that beyond this moral censure, Muhammad did notpunish any man who hit his wife, nor were wives offered any compen-sation for suffering abuse at their husbands’ hands as a result ofMuhammad’s earlier command.

According to another variation of this report, women did not come toMuhammad complaining about their husbands beating them. Rather,after Muhammad had granted men permission to hit their wives, heheard loud sounds. The reports do not delve into the nature of thesounds, but there was sufficient commotion coming from homes thatMuhammad could hear that something was wrong. When he inquiredabout the sounds, he was told, “You permitted men to hit their women.”In one narration, Muhammad responded to this by saying, “The best ofyou are the best to your wives, and I am the best of you to my wives”(al-Haythamı 2001, 4:258; Ibn H· ibban 1987, 17:365). In so doing, hedrew attention to his own behavior as a model for emulation. Muham-mad’s exhortation is premised on the fact that he was the best of thebelievers and he never hit his wives. Ergo, believers who wish toemulate Muhammad—the best of men—will also be good to their wivesby not hitting them.

In another narration, Muhammad responded to the commotion byprohibiting men (nahahum) from hitting their wives (al-Haythamı2001, 4:258). This is the only instance in which Muhammad forbademen from hitting their wives without reversing his decision. Nowhereis the tension between the prophetic prohibition against hitting wives

29 “Ma uh· ibbu an ara al-rajul tha’iran ghad· abuhu farıs·an riqbatuhu ‘ala mara’atihiyaqtuluha.”

30 Al-Suyut·ı cited two interesting versions of this h· adıth, which state “id· ribuhunnaay al-nisa’ wa lan yad· riba khiyarukum” and “id· ribuhunna wa la yad· rib illashirarukum.”

432 Journal of Religious Ethics

and the command to do so in Q. 4:34 more apparent. In most variationsof this story, though, Muhammad did not prohibit husbands fromhitting their wives, but only censured them for doing so.

The reaction of the men in Medina to Muhammad’s permission to hitwives is worthy of pause, because Muhammad’s community is alsoconsidered to be exemplary by many Muslim scholars. The fact thatMuhammad’s own community reacted to his permission to hit wiveswith such an outpouring of domestic violence makes one wonder aboutthe reaction of the early Muslim community to the command to strikerecalcitrant wives in Q. 4:34.31 While some modern scholars argue thatthe prescription for the physical discipline of wives in Q. 4:34 is notmeant to lead to abusive behavior against wives (Badawi 1995; Wadud1999, 74–78; and Barlas 2002, 184–89), that is precisely what resultedfrom Muhammad’s permission in this h· adıth. Once Muhammadgranted men permission to hit their wives, the men in his communitywere so excessive in their use of violence that it led to either (a) womensurrounding Muhammad’s house in large numbers, complaining ofbeing beaten by their husbands, or (b) such a commotion in householdsthat Muhammad became concerned about its cause.

In summary, the variations of this h· adıth leave Muhammad’s stanceon hitting wives ambiguous. It is clear that at some point he forbademen from hitting their wives and that he later revoked this prohibitionand permitted men to hit their wives. He also did not approve of menhitting their wives and censured men who did this by saying that thebest of men did not hit their wives. At the same time, Muhammad didnot punish men who had hit their wives and did not provide womenwho complained about being hit by their husbands with any compen-sation or retaliation. Although these narrations portray Muhammad asexhibiting discomfort with his own permission for men to hit wives, theprotection that he offered women from abusive husbands was moraland not legal.

3.4 The etiquette of physically disciplining a wife

As observed in most of the ah· adıth cited above, prophetic reportsassume the right of husbands to hit their wives, but do not always

31 There is no documentation of the behavior of the Muslim community in Medinaafter the revelation of Q. 4:34. This brings to mind Fatima Mernissi’s representations ofthe community in Medina at the time of Muhammad. Based on her readings ofbiographical sources, she represented this community as turbulent and riven by gendertensions. This vision of the early Muslim community conflicts sharply with the classicalSunni veneration of the Companions as a group. The Sunni representation of the earlyMuslim community as idyllic is in tension with the abundant narratives of misbehaviorthat are captured in h· adıth and sıra literature (Mernissi 1991, part II).

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 433

identify the nature or legitimate cause of hitting—disciplinary orotherwise—and do not necessarily qualify the amount and intensity ofhitting permissible. Here we will examine some ah· adıth that dealspecifically with the procedure and etiquette of hitting.

The idea of avoiding hitting the face emerged earlier in our discus-sion of the rights of wives over their husbands. One of the rights thatwives have over their husbands, along with the right to be fed andclothed, is not to be hit in the face. A variety of ah· adıth address theissue of avoiding hitting the face. These ah· adıth are not limited todiscussions of hitting a wife—they include hitting a slave, anotherman, and even animals (donkeys and camels). The most commonversion of these ah· adıth reads: “When one of you hits, avoid the face”(Muslim 1996, 3:1333; al-Nawawı 1982, 163; and Abu Dawud 1996,2:110). Some narrations explain that the reason for this is that “Godcreated Adam in His own image” (Ibn Bishran 1997, 232). According tothese narrations, hitting someone’s face is an affront to God becausehumans are created in the God’s image. Hence, when one hits anotherperson, male or female, one is encouraged to avoid the face.

The discussion of avoiding hitting wives as one would hit slaves waspreviously encountered when S· abrah asked for Muhammad’s adviceregarding his sharp-tongued wife. At the end of that report, Muham-mad advised S· abrah not to hit his wife as he would a female slave. Thisportion of his advice is also found in narrations of a separate h· adıth,wherein Muhammad distinguished between the hitting of wives andslaves, and addressed the implications of marital violence for sexualintimacy between spouses. The most common version of this h· adıthreads: “Does one of you hit his wife as he would hit a slave, and thenhave intercourse with her at the end of the day?” (Al-Bayhaqı 1994,7:305). Some variations of this h· adıth add the familiar phrase, “Indeedthe best of you are the best to their wives” (Al-Bazzar 2003, 3:196, 203).Other versions of this h· adıth intensify the nature of the beating anduse the word j-l-d, as opposed to d· -r-b, leading the h· adıth to read:“None of you should whip (yajlid) his wife as he would a slave, for hemight have intercourse with her at the end of his day” (Ibn AbıShaybah 1995, 225). Yet another narration evokes feelings of shame forthe man who persists in both hitting his woman like a slave and beingintimate with her (al-Suyut·ı 1994, 9:182).32

The various narrations of this h· adıth sometimes appear in thecontext of general advice offered by Muhammad to his companions. He

32 Marin mentions another version of this report in the T· abaqat of Ibn Sa’d. In thisreport men are told that they ought to be ashamed of themselves for beating their wiveslike slaves and then sleeping with them. This admonishment was issued in response toa woman complaining about her husband beating her (Marin 2003, 18).

434 Journal of Religious Ethics

advised his companions not to hit their women as they would a femaleslave and then be intimate with them on the same evening. He thenadmonished his companions for laughing at one another for passinggas (al-Nawawı 1982, 161). Given the context in which Muhammadoffered this advice, husbands hitting their wives is considered a matterof etiquette (adab), similar to men laughing at one another for passingwind. Lofty and noble behavior, embodied through good etiquette, wasmeaningful and central for early Muslim thought. In this light, it ispossible to see how Muhammad’s admonishment to avoid hitting wivesand being intimate with them on the same evening is of significance.Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the trivializing effect on domesticviolence when it is discussed alongside passing wind.

As in previous prophetic reports concerning the matter of husbandshitting wives, this h· adıth does not question the right of men to hit theirwives nor does it dwell on legitimate causes for hitting. Read broadly,this h· adıth can imply that whipping or hitting one’s wives is incom-patible with the intimacy of a marital relationship; hence violenceagainst wives ought to be avoided altogether. Taken more narrowly, itis plausible that this report assumes the right of men to hit their wivesand adds two qualifications for such behavior: husbands should nothit/whip their wives as they would their slaves and they should notexpect to be intimate with their wives on the same evening that theybeat/whip them. The use of the word j-l-d as a substitute for d· -r-bsuggests that whipping might be considered an acceptable form ofbeating in the marital relationship. In this more narrow reading, it canbe argued that Muhammad sought to mitigate the intensity of thebeating by comparing it to the hitting of a slave and entreated men totreat their wives better than their slaves.

‘Umar b. al-Khat·t·ab appears in another report wherein he adviseda Companion, al-Ash‘ath b. Qays, about three things that he attributedto Muhammad. Al-Ash‘ath b. Qays reported that:

One night I was a guest of ‘Umar b. al-Khat·t·ab, when in the middle ofthe night he went to his wife and began beating her, so I came betweenthe two of them [and separated them]. When [‘Umar] returned to his bedhe said to me, “O al-Ash‘ath, remember three things from me that arefrom the Prophet of God, peace and blessings be upon him: A man shouldnot be asked why he hit his wife, do not sleep without praying the witr[prayer]33 and I forgot the third” [Ibn Majah 1998, 3:402].

Some narrations mention that the forgotten advice from ‘Umarwas that one should not sleep without the ablution (wud· u’). Other

33 Three-cycle supererogatory prayer, performed after ‘Isha’, the last of the five dailyprayers.

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 435

narrators, possibly disquieted either by ‘Umar’s or by al-Ash‘ath’sforgetfulness, suggested that he only offered one piece of advice—do notask a man why he hit his wife (Abu Dawud 1996, 1:41)—or added athird portion of advice, “do not ask a man concerning whom he trustsor distrusts” (al-Suyut·ı 1994, 8:162).34

This report contradicts Muhammad’s behavior of inquiring about theloud commotion that he heard after granting men permission to hittheir wives. When he learned that the noise was the result of menbeating their wives, he publicly reproached them for their behavior.Nevertheless, this h· adıth is in line with Muhammad’s behavior in thecase of al-Walıd and his wife. When al-Walıd’s wife complained toMuhammad about al-Walıd hitting her, Muhammad did not summonal-Walıd and question him about hitting his wife, but simply requestedthat he refrain from continuing his abusive behavior. Of all the ah· adıthconsidered in this study, this h· adıth of ‘Umar gives men the mostunchecked power with regard to hitting their wives.

4. Conclusion

In both his recorded actions (sunnah fi‘lıya) and words (sunnahqawlıyah), Muhammad’s example is complicated on the subject ofhitting wives. Muhammad’s personal behavior is recorded as neverhaving hit a woman or a slave and also hitting ‘A’ishah severely enoughto cause pain. The prophetic practice depicts Muhammad’s moraldisapproval of husbands who hit their wives and sympathy for wiveswho were victims of domestic violence. It also relates that Muhammadconsidered the physical discipline of wives a basic spousal right forhusbands and did not punish husbands for hitting their wives. Ingeneral, wives who complained to Muhammad about violence at thehands of their husbands were not granted any form of compensation,retaliation, or protection against further abuse. An exception was made

34 Kecia Ali pointed out that the wording of ‘Umar’s advice not to ask a man why hehit his wife—la tas’al l-rajul fı-ma d· araba imra’atahu—echoes a Qur’anic verse whichstates that none will be asked about their sins on the Day of Judgment: fayawma’idhinla yus’alu ‘an dhanbihi insun wa-la jann (Q. 55:39). The Qur’anic phrase is used in thecontext of discussing God’s knowledge of all things, so none will be asked about their sinssince they will wear their marks upon them. Because of its placement in the midst ofdiscussions of the Day of Judgment, the notion of accountability for one’s deeds isemphasized in the Qur’anic text. By contrast, in the context of ‘Umar’s advice, the phrasefunctions in the opposite way. ‘Umar sought to decrease social accountability abouthitting wives when he was prevented from hitting his own wife. He did this by deflectingjudgment on his treatment of his wife and sanctioning his advice with propheticauthority. The injunction not to ask a man about hitting his wife grants husbandsunbridled license to hit their wives, while removing the possibility of social censureagainst the practice of hitting one’s wife.

436 Journal of Religious Ethics

to this general rule in the case of a woman whose husband beat herseverely enough to break bones, in which case she was granted a divorce.Still, Muhammad never revoked the right of husbands to hit their wiveswithout, in most reports, thereafter rescinding this decision. For themost part, Muhammad’s recorded Sunnah upholds the divinely ordainedright of husbands to physically discipline recalcitrant wives in Q. 4:34,while at the same time qualifying this unqualified prescription.

Based on this survey of prophetic practice, it is impossible to arguethat the prophetic example—when taken as a whole—forbids husbandsfrom disciplining their wives. It is equally difficult to argue thatMuhammad’s sunnah provides a straightforward and unbridled licensefor husbands to hit their wives. Rather, Muhammad’s recorded practiceprovides husbands with the authority to physically discipline theirwives in a restricted manner. While this authority is a basic maritalright, husbands can choose not to hit their wives. When husbands dohit their wives, the beating is to be “non-extreme.” Husbands mustavoid the face, cannot break bones, and ought not expect intimacy withtheir wives on the same evening. Essentially, without challenging theright of husbands to hit their wives, the prophetic example introducesa layer of ethical discourse within the parameters of this legal right.The ethical discourse focuses on the moral choice of husbands to hittheir wives, the legitimating causes for marital violence, and theprocedure and intensity of such violence. Prophetic practice includesmoral exhortations for “good men” to either avoid hitting their wives orhitting responsibly and also demonstrates moral repugnance for menwho were abusive to their wives, yet never questions the basic right ofhusbands to physically discipline wives.

Muhammad’s reported behavior on this issue is important for thepotential meanings of “submission” and “obedience” available to believ-ers. Muhammad obeyed the prescription for the physical discipline ofwives as outlined in Q. 4:34, in the sense that his disapproval ofhusbands who hit their wives never translated into a juridical decisionagainst husbands hitting wives. However, his ethical objections tohusbands hitting wives, as recorded in h· adıth literature, can bedescribed as resistant. The role that prophetic practice plays inapproaching the question of the physical discipline of wives depends onwhether Muhammad’s behavior is considered “exemplary” or “excep-tional” (Ali 2004, 273–91). If prophetic practice is considered exemplaryin this instance, then it can be argued that Muhammad’s disapprovalof husbands hitting their wives indicated that believers should neverhit their wives—despite the Qur’anic imperative. If prophetic practiceis considered exceptional, it can be argued that Muhammad’s personaldisapproval should not be universalized, especially since he unambigu-ously upheld the permissibility of the physical discipline wives.

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 437

REFERENCESAbusulayman, Abdulhamid A.

2003 Marital Discord: Recapturing the Full Islamic Spirit of HumanDignity. Washington, D.C.: International Institute of IslamicThought.

Abu Dawud, Sulayman ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Sijistanı1996 Sunan Abı Dawud. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmıyah.

Ali, Kecia2004 “ ‘A Beautiful Example’: The Prophet Muhammad as a Model for

Muslim Husbands.” Islamic Studies 43.2 (Summer): 273–91.Ali, Abdullah Yusuf

1997 The Meaning of the Holy Quran. Beltsville, Md.: AmanaPublications.

Badawi, Jamal1995 “Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles.” http://

www.soundvision.com/Info/gender/ (accessed 2011).Bakhtiar, Laleh

2007 The Sublime Quran. Chicago: Kazi Publications.Barlas, Asma

2002 “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpreta-tions of the Qur’an. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press.

Bauer, Karen2008 “Room for Interpretation: Qur’anic Exegesis and Gender.” PhD

Diss., Princeton University.Al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr Ah· mad ibn ‘Amr

2003 Musnad al-Bazzar. Madınah: Maktabat al-‘Ulum wa-H· ikam.al-Bayhaqı, Ah· mad ibn al-H· usayn

1994 Sunan al-Kubra. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmıyya.2004 al-Adab. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmıyah.

Brown, Jonathan2009 Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World.

Oxford: Oneworld Publications.Chaudhry, Ayesha S.

2006 “The Problems of Conscience and Hermeneutics: A Few Contem-porary Approaches.” Comparative Islamic Studies 2.2: 157–70.

2009 “Wife-Beating in the Pre-Modern Islamic Tradition: An Inter-Disciplinary Study of H· adıth, Qur’anic Exegesis and IslamicJurisprudence.” PhD Diss., New York University.

Guillaume, A.1955 The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

al-Haythamı, Nur al-Dın ‘Alı ibn Abı Bakr2001 Ghayat al-maqs·ad fı zawa’id al-Musnad. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub

al-‘Ilmıyah.Ibn Abı Shaybah, ‘Abd Allah ibn Muh· ammad

1995 al-Kitab al-mus·annaf fı al-ah· adıth wa-al-athar. Beirut: Daral-Kutub al-‘Ilmıyah.

438 Journal of Religious Ethics

Ibn Bishran, ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Muh· ammad1997 al-Amalı. Riyadh: Dar al-Wat·an.

Ibn H· ibban, Muh· ammad, and ‘Alı Ibn Balaban1987 Al-Ih· san bi-tartıb S· ah· ıh· Ibn H· ibban. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub

al-‘Ilmıyah.Ibn Majah, Muh· ammad ibn Yazıd

1998 Sunan Ibn Majah. Beirut: Dar al-Jıl.Ibn Rahawayh, Ish· aq ibn Ibrahım

2002 Musnad Ish· aq ibn Rahwayh. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabı.Ibn Manz·ur, Jamal al-Dın, Abu al-Fad· l, and Muh· ammad Ibn-Mukarram

2003 Lisan l-‘Arab. Beirut: Dar l-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.Mernissi, Fatima

1991 The Veil and the Male Elite. Cambridge: Perseus Books.Mahmoud, Mohamed

2006 “To Beat or Not to Beat: On the Exegetical Dilemmas Over Qur’an,4:34.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.4: 544.

Marin, Manuela2003 “Disciplining Wives: A Historical Reading of Q. 4:34.” Studia

Islamica 97: 5–40.Muslim ibn al-H· ajjaj al-Qushayrı

1994 S· ah· ıh· Muslim. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmıyah.2000 S· ah· ıh· Muslim. Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabı.

Al-Nasa’ı, Ah· mad ibn Shu‘ayb1991 Kitab al-sunan al-kubra. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmıyah.

al-Nawawı, Yah· ya ibn Sharaf1982 Riyad· al-s·alih· ın. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risalah.1998 Sharh· S· ah· ıh· Muslim. Damascus: Dar al-Khayr.

Rapoport, Yossef2005 Marriage, Money, and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Silvers, Laury

2006 “‘In the Book We have Left Out Nothing’: The Ethical Problem ofthe Existence of Verse 4:34 in the Qur’an.” Journal of Compara-tive Islamic Studies 2.2: 171–80.

al-Suyut·ı, ‘Abd al-Ra’uf ibn, and Taj al-‘Arifın1994 Jami‘ al-ah· adıth. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr.

Weiss, Bernard G.1992 The Search for God’s Law. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah University

Press.Wadud, Amina

1999 Qur’an and Woman. New York: Oxford University Press.

I Wanted One Thing and God Wanted Another 439