This is the third page for question and answers. The first one and the second one have become very crowded and gone down in the list of articles and so a new page is dedicated for it.
This blog witnesses a number of questions asked in the comments section that do not pertain to the article above. For issues that require a detailed response, an article is penned down; however, there are a number of issues that can be settled by a quick and short response. This page is dedicated to such questions.
If you have an article request or a clarification for an issue not found on the site, then please drop it here.
Salam. There is a bit of a unique problem related to the scientific origins of homosexuality (الشذوذ).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9171406/ for example this article discusses that during pregnancy, a woman’s hormones and genes might affect the child’s sexuality to a point where he becomes homosexual.
there is also some “evolution” related evidence such as the gay uncle hypothesis (or kin selection hypothesis) which is an evolutionary theory proposing that homosexual individuals, while not having their own children, increase their own genetic success by investing resources, care, and attention into their siblings’ children (nieces and nephews). By supporting them they pass down indirectly their “gay” genes.
two issues here;
1- if someone is indeed born homosexual due to hormonal effects when they were a fetus, and they have natural inclination to be gay, how does this not contradict the Islamic Fitrah (natural inclination to believe in God and do Islamic behaviors). Many scholars have said that homosexuality is against the Fitrah, however the evidence suggests that one can be born with natural inclination to be gay. How can we reconcile that with the existence of Fitrah?
2- There is a wide consensus that evolution does not contradict Islam (except on humans). Wouldn’t the evolutionary explanations of homosexuality make Islam and evolution not compatible ?
W/Salaam wr wb. I’ll assume that what you presented is true and not a hypothesis or a theory. Not everything from the fitrah is worth keeping (Q.21:37) and for that, we have the revelation. The revelation guides us. The verse says: [Man was created of haste] and this is a part of fitrah. Being impatient is a part of the nature with which are created but we are told by revelation to not act on it. There may be serial killers with an innate desire to do what they do but we don’t make evolutionary excuses for them. For some, casual stealing from grocery shops/supermarkets is natural and part of their nature and they are required to suppress that desire and not act upon it. Men have desires but we are told to act morally and ethically upon them (within divine guidance). Those who suppress such desires or needs will be rewarded by Allah (ﷻ) and may even get higher rewards.
Salam Alaykum abu rahma, there is a question that I have asked many people and sheikhs about (but not scholars). It’s related to the healing effects of praying to Allah SWT or doing Islamic healing (ruqyah)
I saw a point made an atheist that really was stuck to me. It’s that if praying for healing works, then we wouldn’t have incurable diseases (diseases with 100% fatality rate that no one recovered from)
an example of these diseases are: Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ALS, any prion disease, advanced metastatic brain cancer
(you can see a pattern here that most of these diseases are related to the brain)
all of these diseases have a 100% death rate, meaning no one ever recovered from them. If praying works, why didn’t we ever see a patient with Alzheimer’s miraculously recover or with any of these diseases
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. Praying can work and it may also not work. It is not guaranteed. The assumption itself that praying always heals is not correct.
The objection assumes something that Islam itself does not teach. Islam does not say that every sincere du’a or every ruqyah must result in physical healing. Allah may answer a du’a in different ways: He may grant exactly what is asked, avert a harm, delay the response, or reward the person in the Hereafter. Therefore, the existence of incurable diseases is not evidence that du’a does not work.
Even the Prophets suffered illnesses, injuries and hardships despite their closeness to Allah. The Prophet (ﷺ) himself became ill and passed away. If du’a guaranteed physical healing in every case, then the Prophets would never have remained sick. Healing is one of the outcomes Allah may decree through du’a, but it is not the only outcome. Allah is not obligated to grant every specific request in the manner we desire.
If someone argued, “Medicine works, therefore nobody should die from disease,” we would immediately see the flaw. Medicine is a cause, not a guarantee. Likewise, du’a is a cause, but Allah is the One who decides the outcome. The failure of a cause to produce the desired result every time does not prove the cause is ineffective. It only proves that it is not absolute.
one of Allah SWT names is Al-wadud, or all loving. Typically this is interpreted to “All loving to those who repent”. Yet How can Allah be all loving to those who repent, yet he still allows suffering for creatures who cannot repent like animals? This is basically the problem of evil but in animals. Hoping to get a response.
Al-Wadud does not necessarily mean loving everyone in exactly the same way. Scholars often explain that Allah’s love is connected to certain qualities and actions. The Qur’an repeatedly says that Allah loves the righteous, the repentant, the patient, the just, etc. So Al-Wadud means He is the Possessor of perfect love and affection, not that every creature receives identical manifestations of that love.
Al-Wadūd does not imply that Allah prevents all suffering from every creature. Even those whom Allah loves most (the prophets) suffered. Animals are not moral beings who need repentance, and their suffering is not ignored by Allah; they will receive justice on the Day of Judgment. The existence of animal suffering therefore raises a question about divine wisdom, not necessarily a contradiction with Allah being Al-Wadud.
Salam Alaikum. Im the same person who asked you about Jinn and their ability to shapeshifter into animals and harm us. I am still bothered by this issue. U did tell me that Muslim jinn cannot harm humans, what about the kuffar jin who do? There is a sahih Muslim Hadith about a jinn shape shifting into a snake and killing a young Muslim (after he tried to kill it) I still cannot believe this happened no matter I tried. It would be different if this was a one off miracle or incident but scholars say any jinn can do it. This doesn’t make sense me to that jinn can turn into animals and harm humans that way. How can I save my faith
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. Which part from here do you find troubling?
Salam aleykoum ahki, I hope you’re doing fine. I got huge waswas for a few wekks regarding the issue of the Prophet’s marriage with Aisha. Atp it just makes me uncomfortable and everytime a critic of Islam brings it up, I have a huge crisis of faith. And I can’t help but think about it nonstop. From every angle, I found this marriage to be very problematic and I read quite a lot of Muslim responses but I didn’t find it convincing. The things which bothers me atp is : 1- The fact that it is quite unprecedented. In all the civilizations and cultures whether Byzantine, Jewish, Persian etc, the minimum age of marriage is around 12 so at least the bride must be a teenager. 9 is extremely young from any culture. So it wasn’t even moral according to the norms of the time. And even puberty is reached generally at this age so a critic of Islam might be justified that Aisha was prepubescent during consummation as well. Even in Islamic history, we have very few examples of girls marrying at such an early age. 2- The biological makeup was basically the same throughout history and the Muslim response that people aged faster in the past is false, especially since food scarcity was more prominent. So I feel like it is justified that non-Muslims would feel unconfortable. 3. Also there is the issue of early pregnancy as pregnancy at such an early age would almost certainly cause the death of the bride. 4. Theologically, I have a hard time imagining why did Allah decide to preserve this marital age for Aisha and give a quite justified argument why the Prophet is rejected as a prophet, especially since he is primarily known for this marriage in the West. And it is worse when imagining a 9 year old attaining physical maturity is quite unprecedented and very difficult to imagine. There are many teens who look way older than their biological age but not 9 year olds. I don’t see how to keep peace in mind with this issue as you would need to imagine Aisha being way older than a typical 9 year old and it is difficult to imagine because there’s barely any example if any of 9 years old being physically mature. Due to this, I fail to have a good opinion of Allah because I don’t see why he would give us something from the life of the prophet so hard to defend. When crticis of Islam say that “the best of mankind married a 9 year-old”, I can’t help but feel that it is also paroxical as well. And nowadays, we have to defend it everytime. I just don’t see the wisdom that the last prophet married such a young girl whose very young marital age is unprecedented. I mean the best of mankind shouldn’t have such a controversial issue attached to him. 5. Some Muslims are trying to argue that she was a bit older. And I feel like it makes this issue even worse because it is highly speculative and a critic of Islam can easily reject it saying that her marital age is based on her own testimony, not a later historian, making her marital age pretty certain or close to it at least. And no one really questions if Ibn Umar really was 14 during the Battle of Uhud or other examples, so it feels like the desire to make her older is just embarrassment. And when you mentioned that it problematized other Islamic texts, I don’t feel like it’s a good argument because it’s not a proof that she was older. Also, scholars very rarely denied this marital age until the modern era, making it very hard in my opinion to hold this stance. 6. Contrary to what some Muslims said, it is not a non-issue. It relates to the character of the Prophet and Allah said that he’s an example to follow. As much as we use his morals to prove his Prophethood, it can also be used against his Prophethood because his character and moral integrity are part of Islamic creed. So if the Prophet did something that is clearly immoral, it would make Islam false. I’ve seen some Muslims saying that even if the allegations were true, it wouldn’t disprove his Prophethood but I disagree. As you can see, I have major doubts on this topic and I’m actually very close to leave Islam atp. And I just can’t study the Deen or pray without this topic being on my head. It just makes me mad that we have such a controversial topic on the religion which is supposed to be divine. Honestly, I wanted to reach out to you sooner but this topic makes me very unconfortable and mentally tired but I realized that I have to confront it. How would you respond to these arguments brother ? Baraka Allahu Fik ahki !
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. There’s something I’ve been trying to propose actively is to ignore the years, the dates, the age. People judged on how they looked. There are people who look much older and there are those who look much younger than they are. This post explains this by proofs. She had all symptoms of periods and we do not know how she looked like. You’ve never seen someone her age look like she’s in her mid-teens?
Abu rahma I need ur assistance with some of the Quran verses.
Alleged scientific inaccuracy in these Quran verses need help overcoming this doubt.
Salam Alaykum, I have yet to find a solution to my issue. I’m really looking for an answer and would appreciate if someone can direct me to a scholar that accepts science.
A literal interpretation of the verses below would imply that no intelligent human existed prior to Adam, some have said that the verses only allow for non intelligent hyman like beings to exist prior to Adam. Of course this is a scientific inaccuracy since we know that intelligence developed gradually. So any human that existed prior to Adam would have likely had similar intellect to us. How to fix this problem? Saying that Adam was the first to be conscious is not a solution because as I have said, intelligence gradually developed there’s no evidence that intelligence suddenly skyrocketed in human history
. I wil cite the verses below for reference
Has there [not] come upon man [al-insān] a period of time when he was not a thing [even] mentioned? Indeed, We created man [al-Insān] from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing. [76:1-2] and He created you the first time. [41:21] And they will say, “Who will restore us” Say, “He who brought you forth the first time”. [17:51] As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [21:104] Did We fail in the first creation? [50:15] Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop – then at once he is a clear adversary? And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, “Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?” Say, “He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing.” [36:77-79] These verses allude to the first creation of human beings. Al-Ṭabarī says in his tafsīr commenting on these verses: “Who created you humans from non-existence the first time,”[132] and he says, “Allah created you the first creation while you were nothing,”[133] and he asserts that nothing similar to humans existed before this first creation saying, “He will give them life who originated the creation for first time without any pre-existing pattern, when they were nothing [before that].”
I benefited a lot from ur articles related to child marriage, I was happy to learn that forced mariage is not accepted in Islam.
however, one thing remains, is that even if a girl had reached puberty, if she was 9 to 13 does she really have the mental ability to consent ? Wouldn’t she easily be able to be manipulated by someone into accepting at that age, and how how does Islam protect against that ?
This is addressed in the article titled Does Islam allow marriage with prepubescent girls?
Assalam Alaikum
Before I ask my question I would like to mention that I always pray for your wellness due to how grateful I am for your blog. Inshallah I will pray for you when I go to Hajj as well.
my question is related to something I asked in the past, it’s the existence of biological flaws in humans ,(for example like the airway and food passage sharing a common path leading to choking and the blind spot in the human eye). I initially got his issue after reading the Quran verses about Allahs creation being perfected and without imperfections Your answer was adequate when it comes to us humans (the word being temporary, tests, and ابتلاء)
however all of these reasons don’t really apply to animals. And some animals have the same biological flaws we have, and some of them have unique flaws for example there is an animal that has a horn that can grow so long it kills itself it’s called the babirusa pig. Other flaws exist as well in animals and they would be too numerous to list. So since animals aren’t tested, don’t get ابتلاء, why would Allah design them with imperfections and flaws? And how can we reconcile their flaws with the Quran verses about creation being perfect?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
Thank you for the kind words; they really melt my heart and I’m grateful to you for your duas and may Allah always bless you in both the worlds.
Regarding your question, then the ‘flaws’ in animals are as per what they’re been created for. They are also perfect according to their purpose of life. Some microscopic species may have been created simply to balance the ecosystem and some may serve only after their death.
is it true that the families of combatants against Muslims in wars can be enslaved even tho the family did not participate in the war? I was told that this is a dominant view and developed huge doubts from it because the family did not participate they are innocent how can they be enslaved ?
hello Abo rahma there is something else about slavery that does bother me (I realize that you have multiple questions sent from me about this topic, I apologize unfortunately I get a new doubt everyday about it)
there’s one aspect that seems like a “contradiction” about slavery There’s an aspect of slavery that may result in families being separated from each other (for example if a father and a son were under someone’s ownership, and that master sold the son to someone else , I was wondering how would this be allowed especially when there is Islamic emphasis on keeping family bonds وصل الرحم ?
also what about inherited slavery, why can a newborn be enslaved isn’t that injustice
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Whoever separates a mother from her child, Allah will separate him from his loved ones on the Day of Resurrection. The Prophet (ﷺ) gave Ali (r) two enslaved boys who were brothers. Ali (r) sold one of them. When the Prophet (ﷺ) learned what had happened, he told him: Return him, return him. In other words, undo the sale so that the brothers would not be separated.
As a general rule, the child’s status followed the mother: if the mother was enslaved, her child was also enslaved. This is similar to refugee status. The child of a refugee is also a refugee. The son of a poor man is also poor. This wasn’t because the child had committed a sin or deserved punishment; slavery was a civil/legal status rather than a judgment of moral guilt. A child born to a slave woman and her free master was free, while in other cases a mother’s enslaved status could pass to her child.
The more difficult moral question is why Islam retained that system at all. Islam emerged in a world in which slavery was already deeply embedded economically and internationally. Rather than abolishing the institution instantaneously, Islamic law restricted its sources, regulated treatment, protected family relationships and created many routes and strong religious incentives toward emancipation. So one can acknowledge that inherited slavery genuinely involved a deprivation of freedom without concluding that Islam regarded an innocent newborn as morally deserving enslavement. There are very strong emancipation tendencies in the texts.
hello brother,
you wrote in one of your articles that it is haram to force a concubine into intimacy
I agree with this, however, if a concubines family was murdered, how is she expected to consent to intimacy with a master who may be involved in the killing of her family during a war?
Such topics have been discussed on this site here.
Salam Alaikum. I’m glad to see that you are back.
I have an issue I want clarity on. Enslavement of noncombatants who aren’t in the battlefield is not allowed right? Because I have seen some stances that makes it seem that it’s fine
1-I have seen some claims that a muslim back in the day can go to a city of disbelievers and buy any slaves or children there, as long as there isn’t a peace treaty with them. This was an option since slave markets used to exist. There is no restriction on how the slave got enslaved in the first place like through debt or kidnapping. Apparently this only applies to disbelievers who don’t have a peace treaty with Muslims (its harm to buy kuffar slaves who we have a treaty with their country and they were enslaved non legitimately)
2- Some go as extreme as saying that any disbeliever that is not a Dhimmi or someone we have a peace treaty with can be kidnapped and enslaved from foreign lands including women and children.
could you please cover both points whenever you are available? Thank you brother.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. Some important distinctions are neglected and that can make the classical Islamic position sound more extreme than it actually was.
It’s not accurate to say that classical Islamic law permitted enslavement only of people who personally fought on the battlefield. In a legally recognized war, jurists generally held that women and children of the enemy could be taken captive even though deliberately killing them was prohibited. So “noncombatant” meant protection from intentional killing; it did not necessarily mean immunity from captivity during war. That is very different from saying that any Muslim could simply travel to a non-Muslim country with which there was no treaty, kidnap an innocent woman or child from their home, and make that person his slave.
Classical discussions of captivity normally occur within the law of warfare, involving warfare between political communities and the authority of the Muslim ruler. The fact that classical jurists classified someone as a harbi does not by itself establish that every individual Muslim had an unrestricted personal license to abduct that person wherever he found him. Rules concerning legitimate warfare, treaties, safe-conduct, governmental authority, and treachery all have to be considered.
Classical jurists recognized an existing condition of slavery among people living outside Muslim territory even where the original method by which one non-Muslim enslaved another would not itself have been a lawful Islamic method of enslaving a free person. For example, scholars/jurists discussed situations in which people in hostile territory captured, dominated, bought and sold one another. Islamic law could (and not necessarily would) recognize the resulting possession when those people subsequently interacted with Muslims. This does not mean that kidnapping or debt was thereby made into an Islamic method by which Muslims were permitted to enslave free people. It means that the jurists were dealing with the separate question of whether Islamic courts recognized a status or possession that had already risen under conditions outside Islamic jurisdiction.
Protected people were a different matter. A Muslim, dhimmi, or a person covered by treaty or a person granted safe-conduct could not be seized and enslaved. The Prophet (ﷺ) gave severe warning concerning the sale of a free person as Allah says in the Hadith Qudsi that He Himself will be the adversary on the Day of Resurrection of “… a man who sells a free person and consumes his price”.
There is no need to deny uncomfortable aspects of premodern Islamic law or to accept the most extreme interpretation someone presents online. Classical Islamic law permitted slavery in circumstances that modern people will understandably find deeply troubling. Women and children could become captives through warfare despite being noncombatants. Classical jurists sometimes recognized slave statuses originating outside Islamic territory without requiring that the person’s original enslavement had occurred according to Islamic rules.
None of those facts establish the claim that any disbeliever without a treaty could simply be kidnapped by any Muslim from a foreign land and enslaved. That is a separate legal issue requiring its own evidence from the jurists rather than being assumed from the word harbi.
It is also important not to project the ancient category of dar al-harb onto the modern world. We live under citizenship, visas, international agreements etc. Entering another country under a visa or permission itself involves safety and obligations against betrayal. A Muslim cannot use classical discussions of warfare as permission for kidnapping, trafficking, enslavement or violence today.
So if these claims are causing someone doubts about Islam, I would advise them not to judge the religion from isolated quotations or online summaries. Classical slavery law is a difficult historical subject and should be studied accurately—including the uncomfortable parts but distinctions between war captivity, private kidnapping, foreign slave status, treaties and safe-conduct matter enormously. Combining all of them into Islam says Muslims may kidnap any non-Muslim woman or child who isn’t protected by a treaty is not a responsible presentation of the subject.
if one held the stance that enslaving non combatants was permissible like women, children and citizens, wouldn’t that contradict the many verses in the Quran that state that Alllah is fair and like justice ?
for example , there is a verse in the Quran where Allah says he does not tolerate or accept an atom of injustice. How do we reconcile this with the enslavement of non combatants, which does seem unfair from a modern lens?
to add on my previous response, enslaving disbelievers from such sources would make the Muslims do business with people who kidnap innocents and enslave them. How can this be permissible to purchase slaves from this people ?
Assalam Alaikaim,
what is the evidence that Aisha RA hit puberty before consummation? As I saw some proofs against it
Al-Shafi’i said in Kitab al-Umm: “”If someone says, ‘Why do you claim that fathers can marry off minors?’ it is said to him: Abü Bakr married ‘Ã’ishah to the Messenger of Allah & when she was a girl of six or seven, and the Messenger of Allah a consummated the marriage with her when she was nine. Thus, the two circumstances-the marriage contract and consummation-occurred while ‘A’ishah was a young girl who had no authority over herself. And more than one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah B married off his daughter while she was young.””
1-Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) married his daughter Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). She was born before the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and Umar married her when she was young and had not yet reached puberty. Narrated by Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf and Ibn Sa’d in al-Tabaqat.
Al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) married off a young daughter of his when she was born. Narrated by Sa’id ibn Mansur in his Sunan and Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-Musannaf with a sound chain (isnad sahih).
From what I know, only contract before puberty is allowed. However do any of the reports above contradict that ? Also Al-shaifi said that many companions married of their young o daughters.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. Al-Shafi’i’s stance is not fully presented by these quotes. He said: إذا كانت الزوجة بالغا أو مقاربة البلوغ أو جسيمة يحتمل مثلها أن يجامع | He includes three possibilities: she is mature, near maturity, or physically developed such that someone like her can bear intercourse. Conversely, if she cannot bear intercourse, her family may prevent consummation until she can. So for al-Shafiʿi, puberty and physical capacity were plainly not identical legal conditions.
Regarding Ali/Umm Kulthum and al-Zubayr’s daughter, these reports show the permissibility of contracting a minor’s marriage. They do not by establish that intercourse occurred while the girl was prepubescent.
Ctrl+F “Ibn Taymiyyah” here. Did Aisha (r) reach puberty? I don’t know of a report which explicitly says this but evidence suggests that she did.
Salam Alaikum Abu Rahma, I have asked you prior about concubines and their ability to consent or not. You did link me to a website called turntables
while I did find the article beneficial, I cannot help but feel a little confused. The article says that you cannot rape them, however there isn’t an explicit sentence where it is mentioned that their consent is required.
could you perhaps help me understand this, or maybe you will write a article on this soon?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free.
The idea of rape was uncommon and so you won’t find many direct references about it. Later scholars discussed it more as people talk about things more common in their times. The above Hadith is explicit and very direct. For rape to occur, violence would be required which automatically disqualifies the act.
Hello,
Could you please help me understand the Hadiths about the beating of women?
there’s a Hadith where Abu bakr disciplined Aisha RA by hitting her in the chest
Also another, it was narrated that Ash’ath bin Qais said: “I was a guest (at the home) of ‘Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them.
When he went to bed he said to me: ‘O Ash’ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah” A man should not be asked why he beats his wife, and do not go to sleep until you have prayed the Witr.”‘ And I forgot the third thing.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1986
Then he said: “I enjoin good treatment of women, for they are prisoners with you, and you have no right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit clear indecency. If they do that, then forsake them in their beds and hit them, but without causing injury or leaving a mark.
Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1851
Fear Allaah regarding women for you have got them under Allah’s security and have the right to intercourse with them by Allaah’s word. It is a duty from you on them not to allow anyone whom you dislike to lie on your beds but if they do beat them, but not severely. You are responsible for providing them with food and clothing in a fitting manner.
Sunan Abu Dawud 10:1900
There is also a hadith were someone asked the the Prophet (pbuh) how one should go about beating there wifes, and he replied with a miswak (small toothbrush stick). I can’t find the exact one but this should be close:
‘Ata’ said: “I asked Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?’ He replied: ‘[With] the siwak and the like’!” Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).
Finally, there is another hadith where a man is permitted to beat his wife if she prays for too long! A woman came to the Prophet (*) while we were with him.
She said: Messenger of Allah, my husband, Safwan ibn al-Mu’attal, beats me when I pray, and makes me break my fast when I keep a fast, and he does not offer the dawn prayer until the sun rises.
He asked Safwan, who was present, about what she had said. He replied: Messenger of Allah, as for her statement
“he beats me when I pray”, she recites two surahs (during prayer) and I have prohibited her (to do so).
He (the Prophet) said: If one surah is recited (during prayer), that is sufficient for the people.
(Safwan continued:) As regards her saying “he makes me break my fast,” she dotes on fasting; I am a young man, l cannot restrain myself.
The Messenger of Allah (5) said on that day: A woman should not fast except with the permission of her husband.
I’m not a feminist however why did the Quran put guidelines for disciplining women when they make mistakes, but there’s no such rules for men? we know both genders can be bad
Assalaamu’alaykum,
First, I’d like you to read this before reading further.
1) The statement of Aisha (r) has a context: Look at this narration. The woman was emotionally elsewhere while being with her husband but Aisha (r) stated herself: It was the habit of ladies to support each other. This is not a condemnation of her and may even be a praiseworthy act. So when she described the hit by her father, there was some artistic exaggeration to elaborate on the pain that she felt. Since she did not cry nor shout or even gasp (as the narration itself states), it is clear that it was not a hard hit but something she felt some pain with. An example from today’s time could be a child about to cross the road while cars pass by and the father grabs him by the hand, lifts him with one hand, and pulls him back with force; this will surely hurt the child. In this case, it is from care and in Abu Bakr’s (r) case, it was anger but for a greater good. They were rough and tough people and less sensitive than we are now so we need to give them grace. The important thing is that the Prophet (s) neither approved nor disapproved it. His final statement concerning women is important which will be found below.
2) Regarding the narration stating that a man should not be questioned about why he strikes his wife, its authenticity is disputed. Even if one accepts the narration, the wording does not explicitly state that a husband may strike his wife for any reason, with any degree of force, or without accountability before Allah. The only reason could be if there’s some closeness to infidelity. Some reading material here.
3) The Arabic word for prisoner conveys being in a dependent or constrained position. The narration begins by commanding good treatment of women. It then describes a restricted form of striking in circumstances involving clear indecency or serious misconduct; a striking that is not severe or injurious. This is not an unrestricted permission to inflict violence. At the same time, the traditional interpretation does acknowledge a limited physical act, so it would be inaccurate to claim that the narration has nothing to do with physical striking. The same narration requires husbands to provide food, clothing, and kind treatment and forbids further mistreatment when the dispute has been resolved.
4) The narration quoted is closely related to the previous one. It refers to husbands’ and wives’ rights, the obligation to fear Allah concerning women, and the restriction that any striking must be not severe or injurious. These narrations should be understood together with Q.4:34 and not as separate permissions to use violence.
In the traditional majority interpretation, Qur’an 4:34 sets out a sequence for dealing with serious marital discord: admonition, separation in bed, and a restricted form of striking. Q.4:35 then provides for arbitration between the spouses. This is not a license to strike a wife for everyday disagreements, expressing opinions, making mistakes, or upsetting her husband.
5) For the miswak narration attributed to Ibn Abbas (r), these are extreme cases. Men murder their wives for infidelity. If the striking cannot be on the face and leave no mark, it becomes symbolic because such a strike would not harm the woman physically. A modern day equivalent could be spanking kids; it is more insulting than painful. Again, please remember that these are extreme cases of near-infidelity and only after following the steps before that.
6) This narration can be difficult on the surface but understand the broader context. If a woman goes to a psychiatrist or a close intelligent friend for advice, they would not immediately tell her to divorce her. If I go to my father asking for advice regarding my boss who shouts at me for taking a break one minute longer, my father would not say to leave the job. A wise advice would be to tell me to avoid this trouble and go back to my desk five minutes before break ending time. This is a temporary solution. Since we understand that the Qur’an came down over 23 years and did not forbid alcohol immediately, why don’t we give such grace to other aspects that trouble us? It’s not a made-up grace and appeals to the heart and the mind.
The Prophet (ﷺ) did not have an easy job. His decisions and actions required a lot of patience and wisdom. He saw his closest companions being tortured in Makkah and he had to endure patiently. His last statement disallows beating and we are content with it. The overall context is complicated but I hope this response does justice to it.
Hello. Jazak Allah Khayaran for explaining the Hadiths. I do seem to have misunderstood most of them.
though one thing I do not understand is that Allah SWT gave men 3 steps to discipline women (silent treatment, leaving the bed temporarily and finally a light strike with miswak) for misconduct however there is no approach given for women when men commit misconduct.
Ik that in Islam men are leaders of the house hold however just like women some of them they do commit misconduct. In this case what are the options for a Muslim women and why haven’t this been addressed by Islamic law ?
The Qur’an actually addresses misconduct by both husbands and wives, and even uses the same Arabic word, nushuz, for both.
When a husband commits misconduct (Q.4:128): “And if a woman fears from her husband contempt or evasion, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them—and settlement is best.” This is the same word used in Q.4:34 concerning a wife’s misconduct. Therefore, Allah does recognize that husbands can also commit nushuz. Men are not considered incapable of wrongdoing simply because they have been given responsibility for the household.
Islamic law provides several avenues, depending on the circumstances:
– She can confront her husband about his misconduct, advise him and demand that he fulfil her rights.
– She can seek reconciliation and negotiate an arrangement acceptable to both spouses, as discussed in Q.4:128.
– If the dispute continues, Q.4:35 provides for arbitration involving representatives from both families.
– If he violates her rights, such as by withholding obligatory maintenance or causing harm, she can seek intervention through an appropriate judicial authority.
– Where the grounds are established, she can seek judicial dissolution of the marriage (faskh or tafriq). She may also seek khul’.
Why are the remedies different? Classical Islamic jurisprudence gives husbands and wives different legal powers and responsibilities within marriage. A husband’s responsibility for maintaining and managing the household is part of that framework. However, this does not mean that he is above accountability or that his wife has no recourse against his misconduct. A wife’s remedies generally operate through reconciliation, arbitration and judicial enforcement rather than a corresponding permission to physically discipline her husband. We can acknowledge that this is an asymmetrical arrangement without claiming that Islam leaves women without protection.
“And live with them in kindness (Q.4:19).” In Q.30:21, Allah describes affection and mercy between spouses. These obligations apply to how husbands treat their wives, not merely to how wives treat their husbands. A husband’s leadership does not give him immunity from wrongdoing. In fact, greater responsibility carries greater accountability before Allah. Islamic law does address misconduct by husbands, but it does not prescribe identical remedies for husbands and wives. Whether one finds that distinction intuitively fair is a separate question worth discussing, but it would not be accurate to say that Allah has left a woman without remedies when her husband mistreats her. Also, importantly, reconciliation is not an obligation to remain in an abusive or dangerous situation.