In an article written in Jihad Watch, Christine Douglass Williams wrote:
“The Quran commands full coverings for women (Qur’an 24:31, 33:59), allows husbands to beat and otherwise discipline (Qur’an 38:44, 4:35) their wives, and even rape (Qur’an 2:222) them. Iran follows strict Sharia; women are deemed inferiors (Qur’an 2:282).” (Christine Douglass Williams, Iran intensifies surveillance on women to enforce hijab law, using drones and apps, Jihad Watch March 27, 2025)
Christine Douglas Williams is a regular contributor at the anti-Muslim website Jihad Watch. Although her Islamophobic writing led to her dismissal from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, she continues to position herself as an authoritative voice on Islam in the West.
JihadWatch is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and is run by Robert Spencer. Spencer has been designated a “misinformation expert” by the Center for American Progress, and has been named “one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In 2017 Christine Douglass Williams was fired from her position as a board member of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, a foundation created and partially funded by the Canadian government, after her anti-Muslim writing surfaced. Williams also furthers right-wing and Orientalist tropes of Muslim masculinity by warning of Islamic “doctrine that states that Muslim men can take infidel women.” She also advocates the far-right notion that even “seemingly moderate Muslims” use “Taqiyya” to hide their campaign to overtake Western “land and […] freedoms.”
The interpretation Christine Douglass Williams has presented is a highly selective and, frankly, harmful misreading of the Quran and Islamic tradition. We have to prioritize Quranic ethical principles like justice, compassion, and equality, and critically examine interpretations that contradict these values. Let us address these points individually:
• Full Coverings (Quran 24:31, 33:59): These verses are often interpreted in a very literal and prescriptive way. However, an objective reading emphasizes the context and purpose of these verses. The historical context involved specific social conditions and concerns about modesty and safety. The spirit of the verses is about encouraging modesty and dignified conduct for both men and women, not dictating a specific style of dress. Islamic scholars argue that the implementation of this principle can vary across cultures and time periods, as long as the underlying values are upheld. Forcing a specific garment ignores the diversity of Muslim cultures and individual agency. Moreover, focusing solely on women’s dress places undue emphasis on controlling female bodies, a concept that clashes with the Quran’s emphasis on individual responsibility and spiritual growth.
• Disciplining Wives (Quran 4:34, 38:44, 4:35): This is perhaps the most abused and misinterpreted verse. The Arabic word translated as “beat” (daraba) has a wide range of meanings, including “to separate,” “to go away,” or “to advise.” Mainstream classical scholars limited this hitting in its severity. A humanistic perspective, informed by ethical principles and modern understandings of psychology and relationships, categorically rejects any interpretation that allows for violence or abuse. Violence against women is unequivocally condemned. Many Islamic scholars argue that verse 4:34 must be understood within the broader ethical framework of the Quran, which promotes kindness, justice, and mutual respect within marriage. Furthermore, 4:35 promotes bringing in neutral arbiters to settle marital disputes to prevent violence. The reference to Job striking his wife in 38:44 is interpreted as an idiom related to fulfilling an oath and not promoting physical abuse.
• Marital Rape (Quran 2:222): The claim that Quran 2:222 allows marital rape is a severe distortion. This verse discusses menstruation and temporary abstinence from sexual relations during that time. It does not give husbands any right to force themselves on their wives. The concept of consent is implicit in the Quran’s emphasis on mutual respect and consultation (shura) within marriage, as evidenced by verses such as Quran 2:228, which states that “women have rights similar to those [of men] over them in kindness,” highlighting reciprocal respect, and Quran 4:19, which instructs men to “live with them [women] in kindness,” underscoring a partnership rooted in mutual care rather than coercion. Furthermore, Quran 2:187 describes the marital bond as one of profound intimacy and mutual support, stating, “They are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them,” symbolizing equality, closeness, and protection. Quran 9:71 reinforces this reciprocal relationship by declaring that “the believing men and believing women are allies of one another,” emphasizing cooperation, shared responsibility, and mutual decision-making. Additionally, Quran 42:38 praises those who “conduct their affairs by mutual consultation,” a principle that extends to the marital relationship, reinforcing the necessity of consent and mutual agreement in all aspects of life, including marriage. This Quranic framework promotes a model of marriage based on partnership, respect, and shared agency rather than dominance or coercion. Modern interpretations, aligning with universal human rights, unequivocally condemn marital rape as a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy and dignity.
· Women’s inferiority (Quran 2:282): Christine Douglass Williams’ article claims women are “deemed inferiors” based on 2:282. Q.2:282 addresses witnessing financial contracts, requiring two male witnesses or one man and two women, “so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” This is often cited as evidence of gender inequality, suggesting a woman’s testimony is half a man’s. Some scholars argue this reflects the historical context—women’s limited involvement in financial dealings—rather than inherent inferiority. Others defend it as pragmatic, not ontological.
This verse is a point of contention in discussions about women’s status in Islam. In Iran, it aligns with broader legal disparities: women’s testimony in certain cases carries less weight, and they face restrictions in inheritance, divorce, and custody. The “inferiority” claim has some basis in how Iran applies Sharia, but the Quran itself doesn’t explicitly label women as inferior—it’s an interpretation shaped by cultural and legal frameworks. Iran operates under a strict interpretation of Sharia, enforcing mandatory hijab laws and limiting women’s rights in areas like marriage and legal standing. The use of drones and apps to monitor hijab compliance, as noted in the article, is a modern escalation of control, raising significant privacy and autonomy concerns. This reflects Iran’s theocratic system, where religious law intertwines with state power. However, the quote’s portrayal of Quranic commands as uniformly oppressive oversimplifies a complex reality. Interpretations vary across the Muslim world—many communities reject Iran’s extremes, and progressive scholars advocate for readings that emphasize equality and justice.
From an Islamic humanistic perspective, Christine Douglass Williams’ utterances misrepresent Quranic teachings, ignoring historical context, modern scholarship, and principles of equality and justice. The Quran, when interpreted correctly, aligns with contemporary values, promoting dignity, consent, and respect for all, irrespective of gender.
These assertions distort Quranic verses, ignoring historical context and the verses’ intended meaning. From a humanistic Islamic perspective, the Quran promotes justice, equality, and respect, aligning with universal human rights. Misrepresentations fuel Islamophobia, projecting cultural practices or outdated interpretations onto the religion. A thoughtful reading reveals a framework upholding women’s dignity and autonomy, adaptable to modern ethics. By ignoring diverse Islamic perspectives, Christine Douglass Williams projects a rigid, intolerant, and fanatic view as the only authentic Islamic and Quranic interpretation.
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. He can be reached at [email protected]
