What is the authenticity of the reason for the revelation of the verse "Men are in charge of women" (Quran 4:34) related to the incident of a husband slapping his wife, and does the contradiction in narrations affect its authenticity? And what is the meaning of "if you fear their disloyalty"? And does the verse command taking the three steps (admonition, abandonment, and striking) simultaneously, or is striking the last stage? And does the right to financial support (nafaqa) fall from a disobedient wife, even if she is wealthy? And does striking women contradict the Hadith "A Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe"? And is it permissible for a disobedient husband to strike his wife who disobeys his command because of his disobedience?

The story of Sa'd ibn al-Rabi' has not been judged as authentic or weak, and it has been described as unusual. There is no contradiction in mentioning the father or the family, as the father is a part of the family. Islam prohibits striking the wife for reasons other than nushuz (rebellion/disobedience). When she is disobedient, the striking must be non-violent, without humiliation or injury, and striking the face is forbidden. The man's guardianship over the woman is for her management, discipline, and protection, not for domination. Nushuz is the wife's disobedience to her husband regarding the rights he has over her. The discipline of a disobedient wife is gradual: admonition, then abandonment (in bed), then non-violent striking. The permissibility of non-violent striking does not contradict the Hadith: "A Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe." If the husband is disobedient, reconciliation is sought. The forfeiture of a disobedient wife's financial support does not mean it is permissible for the wife to disobey her husband.