Reclaiming the Egalitarian Ethos of the Quran

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 14 October 2025 Naseer Ahmed’s article, “The Qur’an Sanctions Corrective Conjugal Violence (CCV), Not Punitive Torture (PT),” represents a sophisticated and well-intentioned attempt to navigate one of the most contentious verses in Islamic scripture, Quran 4:34. His central thesis—that the verse permits a limited, non-injurious, and "corrective" physical act distinct from punitive violence—is a brave effort to reconcile traditional exegesis with modern ethical sensibilities. Ahmed’s meticulous linguistic analysis of the verb daraba and his desire to establish moral boundaries are commendable. However, this response contends that Ahmed’s analysis, despite its nuance, ultimately falters. It remains anchored in a defensive apologetic that seeks to sanitize a physical act rather than engaging in a transformative hermeneutic that aligns the verse with the Quran’s overarching, revolutionary ethical mandate. By creating an artificial binary between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" violence, the argument prioritizes a strained literalist interpretation over the Quran’s clear and consistent commitment to dignity, justice, and non-violence in human relations, particularly within the sacred bond of marriage. This rebuttal, grounded in a holistic and humanistic reading of the Islamic tradition, will deconstruct the concept of CCV, demonstrate its incompatibility with the Prophetic example and the Quranic worldview, and affirm a morally coherent and ethically superior interpretation of 4:34. The Fallacy of “Corrective Conjugal Violence”: An Oxymoron in Islamic Ethics Ahmed's entire argument rests on the proposition that a carefully controlled, non-injurious physical strike—CCV—is a legitimate, final-stage mechanism to restore "marital order." This concept is inherently flawed from both an ethical and an Islamic perspective. The article asserts that the purpose of Wa-Ḍribuhunna is "to restore order, not inflict harm," framing the strike as a "symbolic or corrective physical cue." This line of reasoning attempts to sanitize an act of physical force by rebranding it with therapeutic language. However, the application of physical force by one spouse upon the other, irrespective of its perceived severity, constitutes a fundamental violation of the partner's inherent dignity (Karamah) and bodily autonomy (Ḥurmat Al-Jasad). The Quran states, "We have certainly honoured the children of Adam" (17:70), bestowing an inviolable dignity upon every human being. Any act that infringes upon this dignity, especially within the intimate partnership of marriage, contradicts this core Islamic principle. The very notion of a "corrective strike" implies a hierarchical structure where the husband holds a position of moral and physical authority to "correct" his wife's behaviour (nushuz). This is incompatible with the Quranic ideal of marriage as a relationship of Sakan (tranquillity), Mawaddah (love), and Raḥmah (mercy) (Quran 30:21). The use of physical coercion, even if termed "mild," is an act of dominance, not a tool for conflict resolution. It transforms a partnership meant for mutual support into a power dynamic where one party can enforce compliance through physical means, instantly collapsing the foundation of love and mercy. The Prophet’s Precedent Overrides Linguistic Ambiguity Ahmed correctly notes that the Prophet Muhammad "is reported never to have struck any of his wives." This is not a minor detail or a personal preference; it is the primary, living interpretation (Sunnah) of the Quran. The Prophet’s life is the ultimate exegesis (Tafsir). If the best of humanity, the recipient and exemplar of the revelation, found no situation—not even in a 7th-century Arabian context—that warranted the application of this third step, then this step, as a physical act, is effectively morally nullified for the Muslim community. His Sunnah serves as an "ethical firewall" that does more than protect CCV from devolving into PT; it fundamentally abolishes CCV itself. His explicit statements, such as “The best among you are those who are best to their wives” (Tirmidhi 3895), and the prohibition, “Do not strike the female servants of God” (Abu Dawud 2146), provide the definitive context. His wife, Aisha, testified, “He never struck anything with his hand ever, neither a woman nor a servant, except in the way of God” (Muslim 2328). Therefore, the highest moral path for a Muslim is to emulate the Prophet’s conduct, which means resolving marital discord through patience, dialogue, and compassion, never through physical force. Re-evaluating the Linguistic and Ethical Context: Beyond a Physical Daraba Ahmed’s linguistic analysis, while detailed, presents a false dilemma by insisting that Daraba must signify a mild physical act because the Quran avoided terms for absolute separation or punitive violence. The "vast semantic range" of Daraba is precisely why the physical interpretation should be rejected in a context where the overall moral message is one of mercy and justice. Given the sequence of preceding steps (admonishment and emotional withdrawal), a non-physical meaning is not only linguistically plausible but ethically superior. The Quran itself uses Daraba in numerous non-physical contexts: • Daraba Mathalan (Quran 14:24): “to set forth a parable.” • Daraba fi al-ard (Quran 3:156): “to travel in the land.” • Daraba al-hijab (Quran 24:31): “to draw a veil.” This semantic flexibility allows for interpretations that preserve human dignity and align with the Quran's spirit. In the sequence of 4:34, Wa-Ḍribuhunna can logically mean: 1. To Separate Or Set Forth For Arbitration: This is the most coherent reading. After internal efforts (admonition, withdrawal) fail, the final step is to "set them apart" or "present them [for arbitration]," which directly aligns with the instruction in the very next verse (4:35): “And if you fear a split between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people.” This interpretation views the three steps as a progressive de-escalation culminating in structured, communal intervention. 2. To Set An Example/Boundary: As Ahmed notes, Daraba means "to set forth." In this context, it could mean to "present a definitive example" or "enforce a boundary" by initiating a formal process, such as seeking judicial counsel, rather than resorting to physical contact. Choosing a non-physical meaning maintains the ethical integrity of the marriage contract, which is based on mutual respect (Iḥtiram Mutabadil), and recognizes a final, serious step before mandatory arbitration. The Sequence as De-escalation, Not Escalation to Force Ahmed identifies the process in 4:34 as a tripartite structure for conflict resolution. However, his conclusion that the third step is a "controlled, corrective act" misrepresents the trajectory. If the goal is to preserve the family unit and Sakan, the process must logically lead to external intervention, not an internal act of force. Verse 4:35 is the crucial, and often neglected, interpretive key. The immediate shift to formal arbitration confirms that the three preceding steps are an internal process that culminates not in physical force, but in a structured move towards third-party justice. To insist on a physical act in the third step is to ignore this immediate context and accept that the divine standard for conflict resolution is inferior to the moral standard set by the Prophet’s own conduct. The Moral Logic of Divine Intent: Beyond Limitation, Towards Abolition Ahmed argues that the verse "outlaws [violence] except in the most extreme, marriage-threatening scenario." This logic of limitation is flawed. The purpose of divine guidance (Hidayah) is not merely to establish minimal boundaries but to call believers to the highest moral standard—Iḥsan (excellence in conduct). A verse that licenses even a symbolic act of marital violence sets a low ethical ceiling. A more theologically sound understanding is that the verse represents a profound reform in its historical context, moving a society from unregulated brutality to a regulated process. By listing three steps—Admonish, Withdraw, and a final act employing the ambiguous Daraba—followed immediately by arbitration, the Quran achieves two objectives: 1. It categorically rejects all forms of physical and emotional torture (PT), establishing a stark contrast with pre-Islamic norms. 2. It points toward the higher ethical imperative embodied by the Prophet’s Sunnah, which serves as a practical specification (takhsis) that supersedes any permissive reading. The verse is not a "revelatory model of psychological de-escalation" that culminates in physical force; it is a model that culminates in justice through an impartial judicial process. The true ethical firewall is not a "mild strike," but the complete rejection of violence in favour of the foundational Quranic principles of Mawaddah and Raḥmah. Psychological and Social Realities: The Inherent Harm of “Corrective Conjugal Violence” Ahmed’s attempt to legitimize CCV by referencing "modern psychology" and "boundary signals" constitutes a dangerous misapplication of contemporary understanding. Any reputable psychological literature unequivocally states that physical acts used for control or discipline in an intimate relationship, regardless of intention, undermine trust, sow trauma, and violate personal boundaries. There is no credible psychological model that categorizes "controlled hitting" as a constructive tool. What Ahmed labels "CCV" would be classified in any modern diagnostic framework as intimate partner violence. Such acts cause long-lasting emotional damage, anxiety, and a severe erosion of self-esteem. They instil fear and model violence as an acceptable conflict-resolution tool, perpetuating cycles of abuse. This is diametrically opposed to the Quranic vision of marriage as a sanctuary (sakan). Ahmed’s rationale echoes discredited behavioural models that privilege control over mutuality. Modern conflict resolution theory emphasizes non-violence, communication, and empathy. To insert "symbolic striking" into this framework is to misuse scientific language to justify archaic control patterns. The Quran, in contrast, outlines a truly progressive and non-violent process: dialogue, reflection, temporary withdrawal, and finally, external, impartial mediation (4:35). This sequence promotes accountability and reconciliation, not solitary male action or physical intervention. The lived experience of millions of Muslim women testifies to how ambiguous interpretations of 4:34 have fostered cultures of impunity. The potential for misunderstanding and abuse inherent in "corrective violence" is too great to be overlooked. The Prophetic Model: The Real Sunnah and Ethical Firewall Ahmed notes the Prophet never struck his wives but does not allow this fact to reshape his interpretation of 4:34. This is a critical error. The Sunnah is not supplementary; it is the lived embodiment of the Quran. The Prophet’s life is the primary exegesis (Tafsir). When a Quranic injunction and the Prophet’s consistent practice appear to be in tension, the duty of a Muslim is to prioritize the Prophetic example. If "CCV" were a divinely sanctioned, ethical tool, why did the perfect exemplar of the Quran never employ it? His consistent practice of conflict resolution through patience and dialogue renders the "strike" in 4:34 not as a prescription to be minimized, but as a permission that was effectively superseded by his superior practice. The Prophet’s refusal to strike his wives is the ultimate interpretive firewall. This firewall abolishes CCV itself. Traditions suggesting the Prophet considered forbidding the practice entirely (e.g., Ibn Majah) indicate his deep aversion to it, an aversion he lived out completely. His final sermon, which stressed the rights and good treatment of women, solidified this stance. Jurists and modern scholars (e.g., Amina Wadud, Khaled Abou El Fadl) argue that when the Prophet’s behaviour and the Quran’s ethical arc are both considered, daraba cannot be read as physical violence. Instead, it is a call to moral seriousness, a profound gesture of disengagement leading to arbitration. The Quran’s own principle— “You have in the Messenger of God a beautiful example” (33:21)—requires us to interpret in accordance with his mercy-centred practice. Hermeneutical Honesty and Epistemic Justice: The Challenge of Interpretation Ahmed dismisses responsible hermeneutics as “multiplying meanings,” mischaracterizing it as relativism. This misunderstands the nature of engaging with sacred texts. Responsible interpretation is the diligent quest for the best meaning in light of the Quran’s universal messages of justice, dignity, and mercy. The Quran itself contains clear (Muhkamat) and complex (Mutashabihat) verses (3:7), inviting principled, ethical discernment. The tradition of scholarly difference (Ikhtilaf) in Islam is proof that engagement with complexity is a sign of intellectual and moral vitality. When faced with an ambiguous term like Daraba in a sensitive context, and given the overarching ethical principles of the Quran and the clear example of the Prophet, choosing a non-physical, dignity-affirming interpretation is not relativism; it is an act of profound moral reasoning and epistemic justice. It prioritizes the welfare of individuals and the spirit of the law over a literalistic reading that could sanction harm. The Broader Quranic Ethos: Mercy, Justice, and Non-Compulsion Any interpretation of 4:34 must be harmonized with the Quran's comprehensive ethical framework. Quran 30:21 and 2:187 establish marriage as a partnership of profound intimacy, mutual care, and emotional well-being. The metaphor of spouses as "garments" for one another signifies comfort, protection, and adornment—concepts fundamentally incompatible with physical "correction." The Quran consistently condemns transgression (Zulm) and harm. The Prophetic principle of "La Darar Wa La Dirar" (no harm and no reciprocating harm) establishes an absolute ethical standard. Furthermore, the meta-ethical principle of “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) is highly significant. If there is no compulsion in matters of faith, how could it be justified in a marriage based on mutual consent? The only legitimate use of force in Quranic logic is for redressing egregious public wrongs within strict legal limits—never for private, interpersonal discipline. To suggest that 4:34 permits symbolic violence fails to align with the Quran’s broader teachings and its ultimate goal of cultivating Iḥsan (excellence) in all human interactions. The Dangers of Misinterpretation: Perpetuating Harm Through Hermeneutic Error Ahmed’s narrow interpretation carries significant risks of perpetuating harm and misrepresenting Islam. The most profound danger is that a perceived religious sanction for physical action, however "limited," can be misused to justify severe violence. In contexts of power imbalance, the distinction between "corrective" and "punitive" often collapses. This legitimization contradicts Islamic legal principles that seek to prevent harm (raf' al-haraj) and protect the vulnerable, directly undermining the Maqasid al-Shariah (objectives of Islamic law), which prioritize the preservation of life, dignity, and lineage. Interpretations that appear to sanction spousal violence damage the moral authority of Islam, alienate thoughtful Muslims, and provide fodder for critics. They present Islam as patriarchal and out of step with universal ethics, rather than as a progressive force for justice. A holistic approach that emphasizes the Quran's overarching values of compassion and justice is essential to counter this misrepresentation. Cultural Context and Historical Practices: Transcending Limitations While Ahmed discusses historical context, it is crucial to recognize that the Quran’s ethical trajectory aims to transcend cultural limitations. The Quran was revealed in a 7th-century Arabian context where violence against women was rampant. Revelation often came to reform existing practices gradually. Verse 4:34 can be understood as a severe restriction of pre-Islamic impunity, compelling a process of de-escalation where none existed. However, the ethical trajectory of Islam did not stop there. It established universal principles—like marriage as a relationship of tranquillity, love, and mercy (30:21)—that would eventually render such a limited permission obsolete in favour of complete non-violence. The Quran should be interpreted in a manner that promotes these universal values of justice and respect, not to sanctify outdated cultural norms. The Quran’s mission is to challenge tyranny (istikbar) in all its forms—political, economic, and domestic. To interpret 4:34 as sanctioning "corrective violence" is to resurrect the very arrogance and oppression (zulm) that the Quran condemns. The divine purpose is moral elevation (tazkiyah) and the establishment of justice (qist), not the management of coercion. The Prophet’s life and final sermon define the moral culmination of the Sunnah. A just hermeneutic must align 4:34 with that vision. From Coercion to Compassion – A Quran True to Itself Naseer Ahmed’s thesis, though linguistically elaborate, ultimately collapses under the weight of the Quran’s ethical gravity and the undeniable example of the Prophet Muhammad. The divine message, read holistically, never legitimizes violence within the sacred bond of marriage. To interpret Daraba as "corrective violence" is to force revelation into a regressive framework, allowing a problematic reading of a single word to overshadow the overarching message of justice and mercy. Our response has argued that: • CCV is an ethical oxymoron that violates the Quranic ideals of marriage and the principle of no harm. • Linguistic flexibility supports non-physical interpretations of Daraba, such as "to separate" or "to seek arbitration," which are coherent with the immediate context of 4:35. • The Prophet’s Sunnah is the ultimate exegesis, and his lifelong refusal to strike his wives constitutes a practical and ethical nullification of any physical interpretation. • Modern science condemns all forms of intimate partner violence, and attempts to justify "symbolic acts" are empirically unsound and dangerous. • The Quran’s ethical trajectory is one of liberation, moving societies from abuse toward dignity and mutual respect. The moral arc of the Quran bends unmistakably toward justice and mercy. Muslim scholarly progress lies not in apologizing for historical customs by inventing distinctions like CCV, but in forging standards of equity that realize the Quran’s profound vision of a just and dignified humanity. The true meaning of 4:34 lies in curbing coercion—guiding believers toward dialogue, patience, and reconciliation through mutual dignity and communal intervention, as outlined in 4:35. The Quran’s light does not flicker between cruelty and compassion. It shines wholly on the side of justice, mercy, and equality. To read otherwise is to dim that light with the shadow of patriarchy, betraying the very essence of a divine message meant to uplift and liberate all of humanity. ------ V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/reclaiming-egalitarian-ethos-quran/d/137241 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism