Debunking Dawah Spin: Muhammad Allowed Wife-Beating

I just made a video about how unclear the Quran is regarding Surah 4:34, the infamous “wife-beating” verse. Some modern translators try to water it down—saying “separate from them”, which is very different. But if the Quran is so clear, why is there so much disagreement about a moral command? And if it’s clear, why did earlier translators—including classical Muslim scholars—have no issue saying “beat”? And if it’s not clear, then it’s contradicting itself, since Surah 11:1 literally says the Quran is a “book whose verses are perfected and explained in detail.” So either the Quran is unclear or it’s bad. Pick your poison.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1851 – “Don’t Leave a Mark”

Now, I’ll be a better prophet than Muhammad here. I guarantee that some Muslim Dawagandist is gonna make some stupid response and say, “But aCkShUaLlY Muhammad said don’t leave a mark!” (Sunan Ibn Majah 1851). This is the go-to hadith they’ll cite to claim that Islam prohibits excessive wife-beating:

“It was narrated that Sulaiman bin Amr bin Ahwas said: ‘My father told me that he was present at the Farewell Pilgrimage with the Messenger of Allah. He praised and glorified Allah, and reminded and exhorted (the people). 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. If they obey you, then do not seek means of annoyance against them.’” (Sunan Ibn Majah 1851)

Muslims will latch onto the “without causing injury or leaving a mark” part, but what happens when we look at how this actually played out in Muhammad’s time?

Sahih al-Bukhari 7:72:715 – Aisha: “I Have Not Seen Any Woman Suffering as Much as the Believing Women”

Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, literally observed that Muslim women were suffering more than pagan women. This hadith recounts an incident where a woman came to Aisha covered in bruises:

“Narrated ‘Ikrima: Rifa’a divorced his wife, whereupon ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complaining to her (Aisha) of her husband, and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari 7:72:715)

And what did Muhammad do? Did he rebuke the husband? No. He sided with the man.

Sahih al-Bukhari 8:82:828 – Abu Bakr Punches Aisha in Front of Muhammad

Not only did Muhammad allow wife-beating, but even Aisha wasn’t spared. Her own father, Abu Bakr, punched her right in front of Muhammad, and there was no condemnation:

“Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, ‘You have detained the people because of your necklace.’ But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Messenger although that hit was very painful.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 8:82:828)

Aisha was in obvious pain, yet Muhammad said nothing. Yikes.

Sahih Muslim 2127 – Muhammad Strikes Aisha in the Chest

And it gets worse—Muhammad himself hit Aisha:

“He (Muhammad) struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: ‘Do you think that Allah and His Messenger would deal unjustly with you?'” (Sahih Muslim 2127)

Muslims will soften this and say it was merely a “gentle push,” but the hadith explicitly states it caused Aisha pain. If I “gently pushed” my wife in a way that caused her pain, I’d go to jail, and rightly so.

Sunan Abu Dawood 2142 – “A Man Will Not Be Asked Why He Beats His Wife”

And just in case there was any doubt about whether wife-beating was acceptable in Islam, here’s a direct statement attributed to Muhammad:

“A woman came to the Prophet complaining about her husband beating her. The Prophet said: ‘Take revenge on him.’ Then Gabriel came to him and said: ‘Do not take revenge on him.’ So the Prophet said: ‘Allah has given you the right over them, and they have the right over you. You may beat them, but not severely.’”

And in another narration:
“A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.” (Sunan Abu Dawood 2142)

Now, some Muslim apologist will say, “But look! It says ‘not severely!’” as if that somehow fixes the problem. But let’s break that down:

1. “Not severely” still allows wife-beating. The phrase does not mean “don’t beat her at all,” it just limits the level of violence. That’s not a moral prohibition—it’s a regulation. If a law today said, “You can rob people, but not severely,” would we call that justice?
2. How is “not severely” defined? Muhammad never clarified what counts as “severe” and what doesn’t. The hadith about the woman who was bruised green (Sahih al-Bukhari 7:72:715) happened under his watch, and he didn’t tell the husband he had gone “too far.” That alone shows that serious injury was still happening under this rule.
3. Other hadiths remove accountability altogether. The second narration in Abu Dawood 2142 says, “A man will not be asked why he beats his wife.” That means no one is even allowed to question him about it. So who enforces the “not severely” rule? Answer: no one. The husband is judge, jury, and enforcer.

So no, “not severely” is not the get-out-of-jail-free card that Muslims want it to be. It’s just a weak attempt to soften a command that still permits domestic violence.

The Sunnah Is Just as Unclear as the Quran!

Muslims will cherry-pick Sunan Ibn Majah 1851 to argue that Islam limits wife-beating, but then they ignore all the other hadiths that show Muhammad allowing, participating in, and even excusing domestic violence.

The Sunnah is just as unclear as the Quran. One hadith says, “Don’t leave a mark.” Another says, “A man will not be asked why he beats his wife.” Muhammad himself hit Aisha. Abu Bakr hit Aisha. Women in his time were being bruised and beaten, and he did nothing to stop it.

So no, Muhammad was not a champion of women’s rights. You can cherry-pick the soft parts all you want, but the ugly is right there in black and white, and it destroys the idea that he’s the perfect moral figure to emulate.

But What About the Bible? Addressing the Tu Quoque Fallacy

Whenever Muslims get cornered on the issue of wife-beating, they instantly try to pivot to the Bible. “But the Old Testament talks about slavery! But Proverbs talks about discipline! But what about…?!”

This is a tu quoque fallacy and whataboutism—a distraction tactic, but about all they got. Even if the Bible had identical commands (which it doesn’t), that wouldn’t make Islam’s teachings any better. But let’s actually break this down.

Child Discipline vs. Beating an Adult Woman

Muslims will often point to Proverbs 13:24—“Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.”

Let’s state the obvious: Disciplining a child is not the same as beating a grown woman. A child is still learning right from wrong, still developing their moral framework, and requires correction for their own benefit. A wife is an independent adult who should not be treated like an unruly child.

Islam doesn’t say, “Lovingly correct your wife.” It basically says, “Hit her if she doesn’t obey.” That’s subjugation, not discipline.

And here’s the part Muslims ignore: The Bible actually commands parents to treat their children with love and restraint.

• Jesus’ approach: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6). Jesus severely warns against harming children.
• Paul’s instruction to parents: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Paul emphasizes gentle, nurturing discipline—not abuse.
• Colossians 3:21: “Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.”

Compare that to Islam, where beating your wife is explicitly allowed, and “not severely” is never defined in any meaningful way.

But What About Slave Beating in the Old Testament?

Yes, the Old Testament permitted certain types of slavery, but here’s the key:

1. Moses permitted things because of the hardness of people’s hearts. This is exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 19:8 about divorce—“Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart, but from the beginning, it was not so.” The same applies to slavery. Permitting something is not the same as endorsing it as an eternal moral law.
2. Slaves had legal protections in the Old Testament. If a master injured a slave—by knocking out a tooth or damaging an eye—the slave was to be set free immediately (Exodus 21:26-27). This means that even when discipline was permitted, it was tightly restricted, and harming a slave had real consequences.
3. The New Testament gives no command to beat slaves. Unlike Islam, which says “A man will not be asked why he beat his wife” (Sunan Abu Dawood 2142), the NT never tells Christian masters to beat their slaves. Instead, it commands them to treat them justly and fairly (Colossians 4:1).
4. Islam explicitly permits beating slaves. The Quran acknowledges slavery and does not prohibit physical discipline of slaves. While Muhammad discouraged unjust treatment, he did not ban beating them. Instead, a hadith states: “Whoever strikes his slave-boy sharply without right, or punches him, the expiation for the sin is to emancipate him” (Abu Dawood 5159). This means beating was permitted, with the only consequence being manumission if the punishment was unjust. Meanwhile, another hadith suggests flogging slaves was common: “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5204). Notice the assumption that flogging a slave is normal. Islam is regressive, Christianity is progressive.
5. Christianity led to the end of slavery, Islam institutionalized it. Wherever Christianity spread, slavery was abolished. The abolitionist movement was led by Christians, not Muslims. In contrast, Islam preserved slavery as an institution, with Muhammad himself owning, buying, selling, and trading slaves (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 1, p. 387). Even today, modern slavery exists in Muslim-majority countries like Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.

So when Muslims try to compare biblical slavery to Islam, they ignore the massive moral differences.

Christian Teaching on Marriage vs. Islam

Let’s compare:

• Islam: “Men are in charge of women” (Quran 4:34). If they disobey, hit them.
• Christianity: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).
• Islam: Women are “deficient in intelligence” (Sahih al-Bukhari 304).
• Christianity: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
• Islam: “A man will not be asked why he beats his wife” (Sunan Abu Dawood 2142).
• Christianity: “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7).

The Bible elevates women to the status of co-heirs in Christ and commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Islam subjugates them under male authority. Muslims, spare me your whataboutism.