NEWS: An Islamic Guide On How To Beat Your Wife

Originally posted by RANT
If that's all you see here, look again. This perfectly exemplifies the fundamental problem with any religion in any government.

RANT, I agree. I did not say otherwise. I was stating that this thread is not about which religion mandates the worse treatment of thier women, Christianity vs. Islam as some people started to go there with the but the bible also says.... posts.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This I believe is the fundamental problem with attempting to integrate Islam into western countries. Islam has its own set of laws, called Sharia, which generally conflict with free countries constitutional law.

There are four types of Sharia law, you should bother to read up as two of these and the ones more often than not that conflict are not the Qu'Ran or the Sunnah.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It should be noted that, while what this Imam wrote seems reprehensible, Islam does provide for physical punishment of women.

So did the U.K. in the 1950's. It was legal to beat your wife as long as it was with a stick, no-thicker than your thumb and that was published in Government documents.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Here is the supporting Surah (from the Qur'an) that provides this guidance:

4:34 Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

You might wish to check what people like ash-Shafi'i, said on this issue as well as many Islamic scholars and also what is said in the Qu'Ran. 'Beat' has more meanings than physical.

You also forget to mention the Hadith [ "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her? (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43).] which is the word of the prophet Muhammad and his companions and over-rules other verses.

You forgot to mention the fact the word was mistranslated as 'beat'. 'to travel', 'to make a simile', 'to cover', 'to separate', and 'to go abroad', are all terms that could be used in its place. So let us spend a moment to think about this. "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and seperate with them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." Makes it a lot different now, doesn't it?

Abu Da'ud spoke out against their beatings and spoke to people in a direct line to that of the Prophet. "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them."

I could go on and on all day and quote you ten to one and display that the majority of the Qu'Ran does not allow violence against women but I doubt it'd do any good. Most people have made their mind up and are happy to hate people because of their religion. Good work spreading the hate.

In my opinion, the beating of women by their husbands/ partners, is absolutely vile.

There can be no excuse for doing this, no matter what religion or race you belong to.

My reasons for being against this vile act of cowardly brutality is the fact that i have taught martial arts for the last 25 years,
and went on to use my knowledge to teach women the basic art of self defence.

I opened a school to teach just that. I made no money from it, but got the satisfaction that what i was teaching these unfortunate women, would help them against their husbands/ partners if any further attacks happened.

I went to University to get a degree in human sociology to try and understand the reasons behind this kind of treatment. I achieved this, and it helped to some extent.

The best teaching i got was from actually listening to these women. They told me stories of what they they had gone through, and why they continued to put up with the beatings and psychological damage. It brings tears to your eyes when you actually listen to what they have to say. These women come from all walks of life, from single parents, to lawyers etc.

If religion says it OK to treat women in this way, then surely that religion has got flaws to some extent?
How can a religious person who believes in a God and his love of mankind etc, actually beat up a women who, realistically has no chance of ever defending herself physically? Then there is the mental cruelty side of things to contend with.

The above is just my views on this subject, and i know it is wrong to treat women in this way no matter what religion or race you belong to.

Originally posted by nathraq

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
followed by a period of sexual inactivity could be used to discipline a disobedient wife.

LOL at this statement

I'm sure Muslim men are counted among the world's best lovers.

Oh yes, because religion is so important to how good someone is in bed? Right?

Why can't they? Oh yes they are 'Muslims' and thus are 'different'. :-)

Originally posted by SportyMB
RANT, I agree. I did not say otherwise. I was stating that this thread is not about which religion mandates the worse treatment of thier women, Christianity vs. Islam as some people started to go there with the but the bible also says.... posts.

Ah, very true. Yes, no need for that.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
If religion says it OK to treat women in this way, then surely that religion has got flaws to some extent?

Every Religion does, however the major problem right now is that Islam says such things less than 5times I do believe and it goes directly against the Prophets word and thus isn't counted. [In fact, it is mistranslated in the quote he uses but...oh well.]

Originally posted by Bikereddie
How can a religious person who believes in a God and his love of mankind etc, actually beat up a women who, realistically has no chance of ever defending herself physically? Then there is the mental cruelty side of things to contend with.

How can a religious person harm anyone?

Originally posted by Bikereddie
The above is just my views on this subject, and i know it is wrong to treat women in this way no matter what religion or race you belong to.

Look at my post just aboev yours, I go into more detail on the subject mate.

Originally posted by Odium
Look at my post just aboev yours, I go into more detail on the subject mate.

Yes you do go into more detail. I was just expressing my views and experiances as to why i think its wrong etc.

When people use Bible quotes that is speaking to whom and in what sense does it actually mean. Has one read the whole passage understood it and know who is speaking and for what reason? Does one know that some Jewish laws were confined to just particular tribes and not the whole world?
The infrastructure of life was different and that people are also quoted as saying rather than outlining a law. Something’s are hidden in meaning, depending on the person, the culture of the time, the changing laws due to increasing sin and new covenants. Do not just quote from the Bible even if you get it from a website that says so. Christians see things deeper than what a news article may have in today’s uninspired written journalism. There are depths that an average reader will not comprehend because the Bible is not written or meat to be understood in black and white but also spiritually through God as claimed throughout history and today. The whole book of a passage may help also to explain things. Contradictions are due to lack of study and dummying down spiritually.

Its up to you but no serious a Christian will take any common contradictions face on because a serious Christian would rip apart un-understood quotes from applying in today’s world, context, story, timeline, the attitude of a character quoting, the situation, laws according to their perspective, Jewish law for the Jews only, new law, individual circumstances, translation and probably more. Now apply that to everything to really scratch the surface and we might be able to show even calculations in old Hebrew and symbols have their own extended meanings and of course translation also helps as English is not quite pure enough. There are problems in understanding not as much as there once was.
May not come back to reply just adding what I have said before somewhre else.

Originally posted by Odium
[
Oh yes, because religion is so important to how good someone is in bed? Right?

Why can't they? Oh yes they are 'Muslims' and thus are 'different'. :-)

Religion has nothing to do with bed performance. But a Muslim saying they are going to withhold sex from their wives as punishment, this is a blessing rather than a punishment.

OK, topic please people.

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, topic please people.

Sorry, but i thought i was on topic with my posting?

Originally posted by Odium
I could go on and on all day and quote you ten to one and display that the majority of the Qu'Ran does not allow violence against women but I doubt it'd do any good. Most people have made their mind up and are happy to hate people because of their religion.

Good work spreading the hate.

You're right most people have made up their minds and those people are Muslims!! This Imam and thousands others believe wives should be beat (as a last resort). BTW, I downloaded my Qur'an from an Islamic website that encourages the study of the Qur'an (no doubt to spread Islam). Since you are taking issue in the various ways this could be interpretted, I am posting the verbiage of the sentence in question from three other translations of 4:34:

YUSUFALI: As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

KHALIFA: If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

So in 4 translations none say anything about "making her smile". BTW, I am only reporting on what I see and read. It is the actions of Muslims and how they interpret the Qur'an that are causing problems. So instead of trying to convince me of the peaceful nature of Islam, why don't you instead go to mosques and madrassas around the country/world and convince those Imams why their interpretation is wrong.

Originally posted by nathraq

Originally posted by Odium
[
Oh yes, because religion is so important to how good someone is in bed? Right?

Why can't they? Oh yes they are 'Muslims' and thus are 'different'. :-)

Religion has nothing to do with bed performance. But a Muslim saying they are going to withhold sex from their wives as punishment, this is a blessing rather than a punishment.

Of course, because they are worse than the rest of the World due to being Muslims? I love this game. Careful the blacks will be voting next...

Freedom_for_sum, I don't need to get involved. Yusuf al-Qaradawi as well as many other Islamic leaders have already spoken out against such actions due to the fact the Prophet forbids such actions towards women.

Also just because many books give the wrong definition doesn't suddenly make it as right. The Prophet says not to beat them, someone else has added in a term later on which can be translated many ways, fools translated it wrong. In fact, happens in hundreds of older texts...some of us are just able to understand Arabic. [Although only mildly]

In fact, I will be nice enough to quote the Prophet for you:
'If it were not for the fear of retaliation on the Day of Resurrection, I would have beaten you with this miswak." [To a maid.]

So even if they do harm them, their own Prophet and final spokesman of God to the people says they will be judged for that action.

I don't know spanish laws, so I really can't comment on the legality of this, but I am wondering, would what he did be considered illegal in the US? Do we allow books to be printed instructing people how do "break" laws without being detected? Is it the fact that he was teaching religous (he claims it anyways) instructions that went against the constitutional rights of some? just wondering?

Let's not forget that while we are outrage abotu the Islamic and Sharia laws, women in that part of the word are born into that type of way of thinking.

They expect nothing else from life that what they have been born into.

It is easier to critisized from this part of the world because we have a completely different upbringing and way of thinking.

But for the women in that part of the world is no the same, and If you were a male from that way of life too your point of view would be different also.

marg6043, how do you explain the riots that happened in the Middle East in the 1950's, 60's and 70's? Before they were put down by a lovely external force...

A slight side interjection...

Women aren't always the victims. Sometimes, it takes physical aggression to control a violently psychotic woman.

Example: My previous girlfriend.

One night I had the police come out twice to assist me in controlling her. They wanted to just take her to jail. I wouldn't press charges.

One night I had to put her on the ground and keep her there, face down, for an undetermined length of time. Why? Because she was throwing my dishes at my walls, shattering them, and punching me. I never struck her. Not once.
But if she wants to act like that, she can stay on the floor with the dogs.

One night I nearly broke her arm restraining her because she decided to, as usual, go on a psychotic rant which led to her becoming violent with me (while I was trying to sleep).

She threatened me with knives. She threatened me with suicide (purely to get attention and a reaction). She was, by all means, insane.

She's homeless now for all I know. Don't really care.

In no way am I defending abusers or those who will beat their wives/significant others purely out of anger or spite.

My point is, men aren't always the ones to throw the first blows. And when a man turns around and treats a woman how she apparently wants to be treated, why is it the man commonly is seen at fault? Because we are told that women are weak and innocent. In no way could they be the aggressors, right?

Just something to think about before casting judgement on situations which one has taken no witness of.
Women aren't always the victims.

apc does raise a good point.

The victim ideology placed on women is highly sexist. Very few people have a problem with a guy, hitting another guy in retaliation towards him being hit however if the guy hits a woman in the same instance he is judges by the whole of society and labelled a 'woman' beater. To suggest such things suggests that you believe women are in fact weaker than men...

Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_for_sum, I don't need to get involved. Yusuf al-Qaradawi as well as many other Islamic leaders have already spoken out against such actions due to the fact the Prophet forbids such actions towards women.

Odium;

Until your post I have never heard of the individual mentioned above. I did a little research and found out he has a website called "Islam Online" (Islamonline.net).

From his website:

'If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to admonish her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument which might cause pain and injury. Rather this should be of the kind which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) once when angry with his servant, said to him: “If it were not for the fear of retaliation on the Day of Resurrection, I would have hit you with this miswak (tooth-cleaning stick).” (Reported by Ibn Sa`d in his Tabaqat)'

(It should be noted here that the Prophet is talking to his male servant. This reference, I believe, has nothing to do with his opinions on how to deal with a recalcitrant wife).

Also:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) admonished men concerning beating their wives, saying, "None of you must beat his wife as a slave is beaten, and then have intercourse with her at the end of the day."

And later in the article:

These various approaches are stated by Allah in the following verses: "...And as for those women on whose part you fear stubbornness, (first) admonish them; then refuse to share their beds; and (finally) beat them (lightly).

All these are the words/interpretations of Yusaf alQaradai. It seems that he is deliniating between a full on beating (as a slave would receive) vs. a light beating. So, from his website, he does advocate wife beating; only with very limited force. This seems to be in compliance with the prophet's words as no physical harm shall be caused. Of course, nothing is mentioned about the emotional/mental harm (dignity, esteem etc) that could be caused by a "light beating".

I'd also like to point out that this "moderate" Muslim has supported www.islamonline.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">suicide bombing of women and children; supports female genital mutilation; and believe Muslim who have turned away from the faith "deserve killing"

This is what I learned about him in a short period of time. maybe you can find a better example of a peace-loving and tolerant Muslam scholar.