Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition:

A Book Review

Mariam Noor*

Introduction

Ayesha S. Chaudhry is a professor of Islamic Studies and Gender Studies at the University of
British Columbia. She completed her Ph.D. in Middle East and Islamic studies from New
York University, and holds a Masters degree in Near Eastern Civilizations and Women’s
Studies from the University of Toronto.1 Her text Domestic Violence and the Islamic
Tradition showcases the complexity and diversity of the Muslim intellectual tradition on the
topic of marital violence.2 Domestic Violence can easily be categorized as one of the most
comprehensive works dealing with the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse 4:34, an often-
cited verse that allegedly sanctions domestic violence.3 The book investigates the ways
Muslims engage with Qur’anic text, the patriarchal Islamic tradition, and how a community
of believers who value gender-egalitarianism addresses a concrete ethical problem – domestic
violence.4 In this review, I will provide an overview of the book by briefly describing the
contents of each chapter. After having outlined Chaudhry’s major arguments and contentions,
I will critically analyze the work by testing Chaudhry’s observations and hypotheses through
an examination of the politics surrounding the passage of the Punjab Protection of Women
against Violence Act 2016 (‘the PPWVA’).

Overview of Domestic Violence

Chaudhry begins the book with the acknowledgement that no aspect of Islam is gender-
neutral; everything is gendered, from sacred texts, theology, ethics, legal theory,
jurisprudence to mystical expressions and the embodied experiences of believers.5 She
expresses her discomfort with the verse Q. 4:34, which is used to justify violence against
women. This uneasiness led her to conduct a detailed survey of exegetical and legal writings
offering varied interpretations by Muslim scholars, spread over several centuries, starting
from the earliest centuries of Islam to the seventeenth century, the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries. The work is divided into two parts. The first part examines the interpretations
offered by Muslim scholars and jurists in the pre-colonial era, and the second part deals with
the interpretations provided in the post-colonial era. She explains that the reason for this
division is the change in the Muslim discourse, especially with regard to gender, which came
with the advent of colonialism. Chaudhry claims that the pre-colonial age represents the
pinnacle of Islamic thought and the formation of a pristine and spiritually ascendant Islamic
tradition. She further claims that one of the challenges faced by the post-colonial Muslim

* B.A. LL.B (Hons) 5th Year Candidate, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
1
Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, The University of British Columbia <http://grsj.arts.ubc.ca/persons/ayesha-
chaudhry/>.
2
Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 19.
3
Men are qawwamun (in authority) over women, because God has preferred some over others, and because they
spend of their wealth (to maintain them). Righteous women are obedient and guard in (their husbands’) absence
what God would have them guard. Concerning those women from whom you fear nushuz (disobedience/
rebellion), admonish them, and/or abandon them in bed, and/or wa-dribuhunna (hit them). If they obey you, do
not seek a means against them, God is most high, great.
4
(n 2) 19-20.
5
Ibid 1.

110
 LUMS Law Journal 2016: 3(1)

scholars is that they must anchor their positions in the Islamic tradition, as breaking away
from the tradition results in loss of authority in the eyes of the community.6

The foundational argument of Domestic Violence rests on the notion of ‘idealized

cosmology’, which is explained as the representation of a perfect world, the vision of the
world as it should be rather than what it is. In the case of the Muslim scholars under study,
idealized cosmologies are visions of the universe as it would exist if all humans submitted
themselves entirely to God’s laws.7 The book suggests that the scholars from the pre-colonial
and the post-colonial periods adhere to competing idealized cosmologies that are
fundamentally irreconcilable. Scholars from the pre-colonial era promote patriarchal visions
of Islam while those from the post-colonial era support an egalitarian vision of Islam, making
it difficult for contemporary Muslim scholars to promote a gender-egalitarian interpretation
of the Qur’an without losing authority. Chaudhry argues that the idealized cosmologies shape
the scholars’ expectations from the Qur’an and hence determine the meanings they derive
from the verse Q. 4:34.

The first three chapters of Domestic Violence are devoted to explaining how the verse
Q. 4:34 has been interpreted and expounded upon by the Muslim exegetes and jurists of the
pre-colonial era. The first chapter in particular provides the textual, historical, and
cosmological contexts of the verse, which Chaudhry argues, have profoundly influenced its
meaning. Her approach towards the textual context can be explained through the various
interpretations of Q. 4:34 when read with Q. 4:35.8 Together, the verses can be interpreted to
mean that if a marital conflict cannot be solved through admonishment, abandonment and
hitting, then a process of adjudication should be initiated.9 However, it can also be
understood to mean that when faced with a conflict, rather than attempting to address the
issue internally through punitive means, it is best to seek external adjudication.10 Chaudhry
provides details of the occasions of the revelation of the verse. A woman named Habiba was
reportedly hit by her husband, and she took her case to Prophet (SAW), who ruled in her
favor and provided her retribution.11 It is said that the verse Q. 4:34 was revealed at this time,
forcing the Prophet to revoke his verdict.12 Chaudhry holds that the discussion of Habiba’s
story in the commentaries reveals that the pre-colonial exegetes spent their interpretive
energies reconciling the discrepancy between the Prophet Muhammad’s (SAW) response and
the divine decree in Q. 4:34, rather than on any ethical concern for Habiba’s welfare or
protection. Chaudhry claims that despite variance on some technical points, the pre-colonial
exegetes have consistently offered patriarchal interpretations of the verse. They have
interpreted the terms like ‘qawwamun’ and ‘faddala’ which can have various meanings, to
uphold the hierarchy of men over women, and the reason for this lies in their idealized
cosmologies.

6
(n 2) 11.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid 24. Translation as provided in Domestic Violence of Q. 4:35, ‘If ye fear a breach between them twain,
appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other one from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause
their reconciliation: for Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.’
9
Ibid 28. This interpretation was adopted by the pre-colonial Muslim scholars.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid 32.
12
Ibid.

111
 Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition

The second chapter explores the ethical discussion on the procedures for disciplining
the wives.13 The ethical discourse is centered around the terms ‘khawf’ (literally, fear),
‘nushuz’ (literally, to rise), ‘fa-izhunna’ (admonish them), ‘wa-hjuruhunna fi al-madaji’
(abandon them in beds) and ‘wadribuhunna’ (hit them).14 The interpretation of each of these
terms has the potential to restrict or expand the privileges of a husband. Chaudhry points out
that the term nushuz has also appeared in Q. 4:128 concerning nushuz by husbands. The pre-
colonial exegetes, however, have interpreted wifely nushuz to mean four things: general
disobedience, sexual refusal, rising out of one’s place, and hatred for one’s husband. In
contrast, husbandly nushuz has been interpreted restrictively as ‘rising out of bed’, hatred for
one’s wife or sexual withdrawal. The most common interpretation of nushuz in the pre-
colonial era was a wife’s disobedience towards her husband. The majority of scholars
understood it to be unqualified disobedience, expanding the range of behaviors for which a
wife could be disciplined, while some limited it to sexual disobedience (described as a wife
sexually refusing herself to her husband). Chaudhry illustrates the various meanings of
admonishment and abandonment in bed as derived by scholars. Some understood
admonishment as a strict warning or a threat, while others construed it as taking a loving
approach with the aim of persuading the wife. Similarly, a range of explanations existed
regarding abandonment in bed, varying from turning back on one’s wife to sexual
abandonment, and to allowing the husband to have sex with the wife while shunning her in
other ways. Chaudhry conducts a detailed examination of the term wadribuhunna which has
been predominantly used in the debate on domestic violence. The pre-colonial scholars have
unanimously interpreted wadribuhunna as hitting, striking or beating.15 The only
disagreement among the scholars of that era was on the procedure and the extent of
permissible hitting. The scholars held that the hitting should not be extreme. However, their
definition of non-extreme varied drastically, ranging from hitting with a handkerchief to
lashing the wife hundred or more times with a whip.16 The scholars only considered the
prosecution of the husband in cases of excessive violence resulting in the wife’s death.
Chaudhry concludes this chapter by pointing out that in spite of varied interpretations
illustrating the interpretive flexibility available to the exegetes, they uniformly interpreted
wadribuhunna to mean ‘hit them’.

The third chapter of Domestic Violence addresses the treatment of wife beating in the
pre-colonial jurisprudence and explains the positions of the four major Sunni legal schools of
thought: Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi’is, and Hanbalis. The discussion highlights that the Hanafi
school instituted a husband’s disciplinary power over his wife with minimal legal
accountability, while the Maliki position of making the husband liable for monetary
compensation where the disciplining action results in damage or injury to the wife shows
some concern towards regulating a husband’s power.17 The Shafi’is took the imperative as
meaning that Q. 4:34 was permissive rather than injunctive and thus designated disciplinary
action as a discouraged (makruh) act.18 Chaudhry’s study of the aforementioned positions
reveals that the Sunni jurists were in agreement that husbands had the right to hit their wives
if they committed nushuz. The beating should be non-extreme, and what constituted extreme

13
Ibid 57.
14
Ibid 58.
15
Ibid 80.
16
Ibid 83.
17
Ibid 108, 116.
18
Ibid 124.

112
 LUMS Law Journal 2016: 3(1)

or non-extreme was legally ambiguous.19 Chaudhry highlights that there was no discussion
by these jurists on the legal recourse available to wives in cases where the severe beating did
not result in broken bones or wounds. The majority of them held that a husband was only
liable for retribution (qisas) in the case of his wife’s death.20

The fourth chapter deals with what Chaudhry claims to be a transformed discourse on
wife beating in the post-colonial era. This is the longest chapter of her book where she
illustrates how a refashioned idealized cosmology has led the Muslim scholars of this era to
understand the mere permission to hit wives as increasingly controversial, and has divulged
the disparate approaches these scholars have taken to resolve this issue.21 Chaudhry has
divided this chapter into four parts, discussing the approaches of four different groups:
traditionalists, neo-traditionalists, progressives, and reformists.

The traditionalists hold onto the patriarchal idealized cosmology of the pre-colonial
times but add a modern spin to their arguments. They justify the husband’s rank above the
wife in a marriage due to his greater physical strength and intellectual capacity.22 They
expand the definition of nushuz to include carelessness, dishonesty, obstinacy, rudeness,
disrespectful behavior, disregard for marital obligations, sexual lewdness, rejection of
reasonable requests, sexual disobedience, going outside the house without the husband’s
permission, refusal to purify herself after sex/menstruation, and the abandonment of religious
obligations.23 The traditionalists restrict the kind of beating available to the husbands, and
interpret the imperative ‘hit them’ as permissive in case of necessity and as a last effort to
save marriage.24

The chapter then goes on to examine the position of the neo-traditionalists and claims
that they are in the unenviable position of trying to balance the authority of the patriarchal
tradition with gender-egalitarian values.25 It is further claimed that the interpretation of
wadribuhunna as ‘hit them’ is emblematic of the position of the neo-traditionalists who,
while heavily supporting egalitarian cosmology, have managed to create an ethical space for
husbands to hit their wives.26 The neo-traditionalists hold that the hitting is meant to be
symbolic rather than punitive. They restrict the definition of nushuz to either manifest
indecency or the ill will of the wife. The neo-traditionalists distinguish between physical
disciplining and violence, and condemn domestic violence. Chaudhry aptly points out their
failure to provide grounds for this delineation.

Chaudhry then moves on to discuss the position adopted by the progressive scholars.
She asserts that to claim authority, the progressive scholars desire to maintain a relationship
with the pre-colonial tradition. They achieve this by representing minority opinions in
traditional sources as dominant, and presenting them in such a light that they support their
gender-egalitarian understanding of Islam. Moreover, they interpret nushuz to mean ‘sexual

19
Ibid 131.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid 135.
22
Ibid 145.
23
Ibid 149.
24
Ibid 154.
25
Ibid 157.
26
Ibid 158.

113
 Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition

infidelity and disloyalty’ and hold that this applies to both, the husband and the wife.27 The
progressive scholars offer alternative meanings of wadribuhunna, arguing that it might mean
‘and have sex with them’ after a period of separation or ‘turn away from them.’28 They firmly
believe that there is no room for husbands to hit their wives.

Finally, the chapter discusses the approach adopted by the reformists. The approaches
of the reformists and the traditionalists lie on the opposite ends of the spectrum. The
reformists claim not to be bound by tradition as it was created by men who were but subjects
of their historical and social contexts. They interpret nushuz in the same manner as the
progressives. They also offer unprecedented and non-violent interpretation of wadribuhunna
to mean ‘separation’. Chaudhry concludes this chapter by observing that the struggle in the
modern discussions is not so much with the Qur’anic text as with the tradition of
interpretation that attributed patriarchal meanings to the Qur’an.29 She argues that this
diversity in the contemporary thought in many ways parallels the pre-colonial scholarship on
topics unrelated to gender.

In the final chapter of her book, Chaudhry illustrates the selective use and different
interpretations of the Qur’anic texts and the Prophetic reports by Muslim scholars to justify
their interpretations of the Qur’anic texts. She provides various examples, most notably, the
verse Q. 30:21. This verse states, ‘And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates
from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and
mercy between your (hearts); verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.’30 The
progressives and the reformists use this verse to establish the basis of an ideal relationship
and as a challenge to physical disciplining, whereas the pre-colonial scholars have never
mentioned Q. 30:21 in their exegetical and legal reflection on Q. 4:34.31 Similarly, Chaudhry
argues that according to a hadith, the Prophet (SAW) prohibited men from hitting their wives
like slaves and then sleeping with them on the same evening.32 The pre-colonial scholars
interpreted this hadith as distinguishing the beating of wives from the beating of slaves since
husbands might desire intimacy with their wives. Meanwhile, the progressives and the
reformists understood it to mean that there was an outright prohibition against hitting one’s
wives, holding that Prophet (SAW) instructs Muslims not to beat their wives as they would
beat a slave.33 Finally, Chaudhry concludes her book by reiterating that the readers and their
expectations determine the meaning of any given piece of the Qur’anic text.

Analysis

Domestic Violence is an accessible piece of work, making it easier to grasp the nuanced
reality of the interpretations of Q. 4:34 offered by various scholars. Chaudhry’s extensive
examination of the position of traditional and contemporary scholars with respect to the other
Qur’anic verses and Prophetic reports shows the thoroughness of her research. The

27
Ibid 179.
28
Ibid 182.
29
Ibid 195.
30
Ibid 202.
31
Ibid.
32
Mansur ibn Yunus Al-Buhuti, Irshad uli al-nuha li-daqa iq al-Muntaha: hashiya ala Muntah al-iradat (vol 2,
Dae Khidr 2000) 1133; Muwaffaq al-Din ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni li-Ibn Qudama (vol
10, Hajr, 1982) 1261-62; Mari ibn Yusuf Al Karmi, Ghayat al-muntaha fi al-jam‘ banya al-Iqna wa-al-
Muntaha (vol 2, al- Mu’assasa al-Sa’idiyya, 1981) 92; (n 1) 218.
33
(n 2) 218.

114
 LUMS Law Journal 2016: 3(1)

incorporation of interpretations offered by female Muslim scholars is another commendable

feature of her work. Her discussion of the influence of one’s idealized cosmology on one’s
interpretation of primary sources is particularly insightful. It lays bare the extent of
maneuvering by scholars, while interpreting the sources, in reaching their desired
conclusions. The book is well-structured and the arguments are clear and well-presented.
Even if the readers, without knowing her thesis, were to read some extracts of her book
dealing with diverse interpretations offered by scholars, they would probably arrive at the
same conclusion.

Chaudhry’s work has special relevance for Pakistan, particularly with reference to the
recent passage of the PPWVA by the Punjab Government that has sparked debate on the link
between domestic violence and Islam. As the name suggests, the PPWVA was meant to
provide protection to the women of Pakistan, which has been ranked as the third most
dangerous country for the women to live in.34 Section 2(r) of the PPWVA describes violence
as ‘any offence committed against the human body of the aggrieved person including
abetment of an offence, domestic violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse, economic
abuse, stalking or a cybercrime.’35 The fact that the Act attempts to criminalize domestic
violence has caused much controversy. While the legislation was welcomed and celebrated in
some quarters of the country for being a step in the right direction, others, particularly the
right wing religious parties and the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), vehemently opposed it
and declared it un-Islamic.36 They opined that the law is a threat to the family as a social
institution and is contrary to the teachings of Islam and Sharia, and hence to the Constitution
of Pakistan.37 The CII also claimed that the law decreased the powers of husbands in a
marriage and oppressed them.

Following this, the CII has recently proposed an alternative Women Protection Bill.
Among the various propositions, the most relevant for the purposes of this review is the
advisory body’s proposal that ‘a husband should be allowed to lightly beat his wife if she
defies his commands and refuses to dress up as per his desires; turns down demand of
intercourse without any religious excuse or does not take bath after intercourse or menstrual
periods.’38 It has suggested that beating is also permissible if a woman does not wear hijab,
interacts with strangers, speaks loud enough that she can easily be heard by strangers, and
provides monetary support to people without her spouse’s permission.39 In a press release, the
CII sought to clarify what it meant by ‘lightly beating’, suggesting that a husband ‘hit her
with light things like [a] handkerchief, a hat or a turban, but do not hit her on the face or
private parts. And the beating should not cause any kind of physical damage or even
scratches. Resort to light stuff, nothing serious.’40 This proposition by the CII has brought to

34
Asian Human Rights Commission, ‘PAKISTAN: World’s third most dangerous country for women, A
statement on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women’ AHRC News (24th
November, 2015).
35
Protection of Women against Violence Act 2016, s 2 (r).
36
Dr. Inam Ullah, Chief Research Officer CII, Press Release, 5th April 2016
<http://cii.gov.pk/pressreleases/PressRelease050416.pdf> accessed 14 June 2016.
37
Ibid.
38
Obaid Abbasi, ‘Women Protection: CII Tells Members to Finalise Bill’ The Express Tribune (26th May, 2016)
<http://tribune.com.pk/story/1110571/name-protection-cii-bill-proposes-curbs-women/> accessed 13 June 2016.
39
Ibid.
40
Sardar Sikander and Aroosa Shaukat, ‘‘Gentle Beating’ of Wife is No Violence, says CII Chief’ The Express
Tribune (27th May, 2016) <http://tribune.com.pk/story/1111222/nothing-serious-gentle-beating-wife-no-
violence-says-cii-chief/> accessed 13 June 2016.

115
 Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition

the forefront a highly debated issue – does Islam condone domestic violence? Is Islam not a
religion of peace? What does it mean to say that men have authority over women? Does
Islam not promote egalitarian principles? What exactly do the terms nushuz and
wadribuhunna in the verse Q. 4:34 denote?

Using Chaudhry’s analytical framework to examine the Women Protection Bill

proposed by the CII, it appears that the CII’s proposal to make lightly beating one’s wife
permissible has more to do with an interpretation of the verse Q. 4:34, which is influenced by
their patriarchal world view, rather than by what Islam or the Qur’an represents. The
opponents of the PPWVA claimed that it was an attempt to make men insecure. As a result, it
was unsurprisingly to protect the privileges and powers of men that the CII responded with its
own version of the Act, allowing husbands to lightly beat their wives for the commission of
nushuz.41 Viewing the CII’s position through the lens of Chaudhry’s idealized cosmologies
helps one place the CII on the spectrum of the pre-colonial and the post-colonial scholars.
The CII seems to fall in the category of the traditionalists among the post-colonial scholars
with its expansive definition of nushuz and restrictions on permissible beating available to
husbands. It also helps one understand the basis of the CII’s arguments and the selective
picking and choosing by it of the Qur’anic verses and the Prophetic reports. This gives one a
tool to engage in constructive evaluation of the position adopted by the CII rather than
blatantly discarding its position without grounds to supports one’s stance.

Chaudhry believes that it was the experience of colonization by the West that brought
about changes in the traditional Muslim discourse. She refuses to provide a specific date for
colonization since different regions experienced it at different times. It can be argued that
Chaudhry fails to take into account the periods during which colonization actually occurred
and to provide how and on what grounds the discourse was changed, as she only ends up
discussing the earliest centuries of Islam till the seventeenth century, and then fast forwards
her discussion to the twentieth and twenty first centuries. She also fails to address other
pertinent questions: Would there have been no change in the discourse if not for
colonization? Is it correct to assume that the West espoused egalitarian values during
colonization when it was itself struggling with issues like the women’s suffrage movement?
What about the position of the Muslim scholars who were in the regions that were not
colonized? Her stance fails to provide reasons for evolution in the Muslim discourse. She
needed to address these questions to provide a better understanding of the actual reasons for
the change in the Muslim discourse which she claims resulted from colonization. Moreover,
the influence of the West on Islamic thought in particular has to be examined critically
because of the attitude of the majority of the Muslim scholars, especially in our part of the
world, who see the West as a threat. There are scholars who are not ready to engage with any
thought that has been influenced by the West. Some opposition to the PPWVA was rooted in
the belief that the Act was a conspiracy by the West to undermine Islam and dominate the
Muslim culture. Fazl-ur-Rehman, a cleric and leader of the party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F),
said, ‘[T]his law is an attempt to make Pakistan a Western colony again.’42 This is one of the
reasons for which the Islamic tradition is defended vehemently, and in order to derive

41
‘CII Rules Women’s Protection Law ‘un-Islamic’’ The Express Tribune (3rd March, 2016)
<http://tribune.com.pk/story/1058773/top-pakistani-religious-body-rules-womens-protection-law-un-islamic/>
accessed 14 June 2016.
42
‘Pakistan Religious Leaders Slam Women’s Protection Act’ Al Jazeera (4th March, 2016)
<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/religious-leaders-slam-women-protection-act-pakistan-16030316070
5361.html> accessed 12 June 2016.

116
 LUMS Law Journal 2016: 3(1)

authority, Muslim scholars have to provide a basis for their position in the tradition.
Chaudhry’s claim that it was the influence of the West that brought about change in the
discourse just feeds into the fears and insecurities of the Muslim scholars and strengthens
their monopoly over what constitutes a tradition.

As pointed out earlier, the book starts with Chaudhry’s acceptance that every aspect
of Islam is gendered. She moves on to question Islam’s stance on gender equality. The book
attempts to address this question by surveying how different scholars interpreted the Qur’an
and at the same time shedding light on how those scholars handpicked the verses and the
Prophetic reports that favored their interpretations. Chaudhry’s approach leaves the question
open-ended and invites the reader to challenge the credentials of an ‘egalitarian’ approach of
the contemporary Muslim scholars, especially in the final chapter where she sheds light on
the failure of these scholars to address verses or the Prophetic reports that blatantly disfavor
their stance. An instance of this is the Prophetic report where the Prophet (SAW) prohibited
men from hitting their wives saying, ‘Do not hit the maidservants of God’ but he later
retracted his ban on hitting wives in the following words: ‘hit them.’ However, when married
women complained to Prophet Muhammad (SAW), he censured those who had hit their
wives, saying, ‘[T]hey were not best of the men.’43 The post-colonial scholars ignore the part
of this hadith that gives permission; they draw on the first and the last portions of the
hadith.44 Similarly, Chaudhry gives an example from the Prophet’s farewell sermon when the
Prophet gave important instructions for moral, ethical and upright behavior while summing
up his prophetic message. He enjoined believers to hit their wives in a non-extreme manner
only if they allowed those whom their husbands disliked into their beds or if they openly
committed lewd acts.45 However, the post-colonial scholars who claim that physical violence
is prohibited, regardless of whether the nature of beating is extreme or non-extreme, simply
discredit the authenticity of this hadith.46 Hence the debate whether or not Islam promotes
equality, which was initiated rather enthusiastically by Chaudhry with her personal account,
is left unattended. This raises two questions (or confusions) in the reader’s mind. Does
Chaudhry believe that there can never be a clear answer to the issue and hence obscures the
discussion in her conclusion by pointing out that Q. 4:34 will always have multiple
meanings?47 Or is Chaudhry, who believes in gender-egalitarianism, shying away from
acknowledging that Islam itself is inherently patriarchal? It would have been interesting to
have a clear answer from Chaudhry on the issue, given that she was aware of the gaps in the
arguments presented by the scholars and their maneuvering to reach the conclusions they
wanted to derive based on their idealized cosmologies.

Conclusion

Despite its shortcomings, Domestic Violence offers readers a means to constructively engage
with the explanations provided by various Muslim scholars concerning controversial social
subjects. It effectively illustrates the influence of the idealized cosmology-driven
expectations on the selection and interpretation of primary resources through an extensive

43
(n 2) 211.
44
Ibid.
45
Al Khazin al Baghdadi, Tafsir al-Khazin: al musamma Lubab al ta’wil fi ma’ani al tanzil (Maktaba al-
Muthanna 1975) 375; Abd al Rahman al-Tha’alibi, Tafsir al-Tha’alibi, al-musamma bi-l-Jawahir al-hisan fi
tafsir al-Qur’an (vol 2, Dar Ihya al-Turath 1997) 230-1; (n 1) 213.
46
(n 2) 214.
47
Ibid 224.

117
 Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition

study of the diverse interpretations of the verse Q. 4:34.48 The traditional Muslim scholars,
from a period of uncontested reign of patriarchy, interpreted wadribuhunna as meaning that
husbands could hit their wives. None of them believed it to be unacceptable or forbidden for
husbands to hit their wives.49 It goes on to show that the modern Muslim scholars, belonging
to an age where patriarchy is being challenged by gender-egalitarianism, provide multiple
interpretations of wadribuhunna, with some scholars interpreting it to mean that husbands
may not hit their wives at all.50 By engaging with the criticism of both the traditional Muslim
scholars and the modern Muslim scholars, the book allows readers the creative space to
challenge those scholars sitting in various councils and asserting religious authority, by
surpassing the boundaries of the framework set by those scholars.

48
Ibid 220.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid 221.

118