Respected Kuwaiti Scholar on NECESSITY of Beating Your Wife

[daveman]

"Symbolic hit with the scarf"?

Do you really expect anyone to believe that crap?

In terms of the theological practices of Islam? Yes, that is what the main jurisprudential schools teach, and he referenced it in the video too (though he cited a handkerchief instead).

What do you do when waving a piece of cloth doesn't make her stop her egregious misbehavior (withholding sex, driving, thinking)?

I'm not denying that domestic abuse happens, I in part specialize in women's rights within economic development (it's what I wrote my thesis on), so I am very familiar with such abuses across the developing world, but I also know that such practices tend to be largely cultural not theological.

In Islam, culture and theology are inextricably intertwined.

Sorry, not buying your whitewashing of the atrocities committed by Muslims when they feel they have a religious imperative to commit them.

 

[daveman]

GHook, you can drag up all the Muslim Bogeymen you want.

I'm still of the attitude of "Fuck Israel" and all the wars it keeps dragging us into.

Ja, Ja, sehr gut, mein Freund! Sie erfreuen mich außerordentlich!

 

[Osomir]

What do you do when waving a piece of cloth doesn't make her stop her egregious misbehavior (withholding sex, driving, thinking)?

You get divorced. Islamic lawsets allow for both men and women to file for divorce, though women in some areas may need to demonstrate better cause for it than men.

In Islam, culture and theology are inextricably intertwined.

It absolutely often is, Islam is a very complex religion and there are really thousands of what we would consider to be "denominations". It's a side effect on how many communities construct sharia sets. You have the overarching edicts of the Quran, which override everything, but the Quran doesn't really talk about day to day behavior and issues, thus through Greek logical influence sharia sets emerged after Muhammad died to try to guide the day to day living of Muslims. So the next layer of sharia sets revolve around hadiths, or the Sunnah, what Muhammad supposedly said, did or approved of. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these and they all differ in terms of authenticity and strength, it is really up to the individual Muslim theologically what to decide upon themselves from these, but over time more popular schools of jurisprudence grew out of them based on the ruling and teachings of those consider to be well learned in the subject.

There are of course other layers of beliefs that go down to the local level. "Religious" lawsets can be derived through common local consensus, or even codified through local custom or tradition. It in essence folds local culture into religious legal sets. The thing is that local culture differs greatly across regions so you get a lot of different methods of practicing Islam in the world. Often times this can include very traditional local patriarchal structures and gender roles. That isn't theology though per say, that is simply the religious codification of local culture.

As far as the more scholastic formal jurisprudential institutions (like the Hanafi school of thought), wife beating simply isn't allowed. It is covered pretty heavily in authoritative Sunni hadith collections (like Muslim, Bukhari, and Tabari collections).

Sorry, not buying your whitewashing of the atrocities committed by Muslims when they feel they have a religious imperative to commit them.

I'm not whitewashing anything, I'm pointing out the difference between mainstream Islamic theological concepts, broader cultures based on non-theological expressions of gender norms, and how the two can interact. We do the same thing for religions like Christianity, and Judaism as well.

 

[daveman]

What do you do when waving a piece of cloth doesn't make her stop her egregious misbehavior (withholding sex, driving, thinking)?

You get divorced. Islamic lawsets allow for both men and women to file for divorce, though women in some areas may need to demonstrate better cause for it than men.

Kinda like the requirement for 4 male witnesses when a woman accuses a man of rape, huh?

Yeah, I have no doubt at all that women have a harder time getting a divorce -- in much the same way a cow has a hard time getting a divorce from her owner in America.

In Islam, culture and theology are inextricably intertwined.

It absolutely often is, Islam is a very complex religion and there are really thousands of what we would consider to be "denominations". It's a side effect on how many communities construct sharia sets. You have the overarching edicts of the Quran, which override everything, but the Quran doesn't really talk about day to day behavior and issues, thus through Greek logical influence sharia sets emerged after Muhammad died to try to guide the day to day living of Muslims. So the next layer of sharia sets revolve around hadiths, or the Sunnah, what Muhammad supposedly said, did or approved of. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these and they all differ in terms of authenticity and strength, it is really up to the individual Muslim theologically what to decide upon themselves from these, but over time more popular schools of jurisprudence grew out of them based on the ruling and teachings of those consider to be well learned in the subject.

There are of course other layers of beliefs that go down to the local level. "Religious" lawsets can be derived through common local consensus, or even codified through local custom or tradition. It in essence folds local culture into religious legal sets. The thing is that local culture differs greatly across regions so you get a lot of different methods of practicing Islam in the world. Often times this can include very traditional local patriarchal structures and gender roles. That isn't theology though per say, that is simply the religious codification of local culture.

As far as the more scholastic formal jurisprudential institutions (like the Hanafi school of thought), wife beating simply isn't allowed. It is covered pretty heavily in authoritative Sunni hadith collections (like Muslim, Bukhari, and Tabari collections).

Sorry, not buying your whitewashing of the atrocities committed by Muslims when they feel they have a religious imperative to commit them.

I'm not whitewashing anything, I'm pointing out the difference between mainstream Islamic theological concepts, broader cultures based on non-theological expressions of gender norms, and how the two can interact. We do the same thing for religions like Christianity, and Judaism as well.

Yes, except there are no Jewish and Christian atrocities to whitewash, are there?

 

[JoeB131]

GHook, you can drag up all the Muslim Bogeymen you want.

I'm still of the attitude of "Fuck Israel" and all the wars it keeps dragging us into.

Ja, Ja, sehr gut, mein Freund! Sie erfreuen mich außerordentlich!

 

[FA_Q2]

What do you do when waving a piece of cloth doesn't make her stop her egregious misbehavior (withholding sex, driving, thinking)?

You get divorced. Islamic lawsets allow for both men and women to file for divorce, though women in some areas may need to demonstrate better cause for it than men.

In Islam, culture and theology are inextricably intertwined.

It absolutely often is, Islam is a very complex religion and there are really thousands of what we would consider to be "denominations". It's a side effect on how many communities construct sharia sets. You have the overarching edicts of the Quran, which override everything, but the Quran doesn't really talk about day to day behavior and issues, thus through Greek logical influence sharia sets emerged after Muhammad died to try to guide the day to day living of Muslims. So the next layer of sharia sets revolve around hadiths, or the Sunnah, what Muhammad supposedly said, did or approved of. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these and they all differ in terms of authenticity and strength, it is really up to the individual Muslim theologically what to decide upon themselves from these, but over time more popular schools of jurisprudence grew out of them based on the ruling and teachings of those consider to be well learned in the subject.

There are of course other layers of beliefs that go down to the local level. "Religious" lawsets can be derived through common local consensus, or even codified through local custom or tradition. It in essence folds local culture into religious legal sets. The thing is that local culture differs greatly across regions so you get a lot of different methods of practicing Islam in the world. Often times this can include very traditional local patriarchal structures and gender roles. That isn't theology though per say, that is simply the religious codification of local culture.

As far as the more scholastic formal jurisprudential institutions (like the Hanafi school of thought), wife beating simply isn't allowed. It is covered pretty heavily in authoritative Sunni hadith collections (like Muslim, Bukhari, and Tabari collections).

Sorry, not buying your whitewashing of the atrocities committed by Muslims when they feel they have a religious imperative to commit them.

I'm not whitewashing anything, I'm pointing out the difference between mainstream Islamic theological concepts, broader cultures based on non-theological expressions of gender norms, and how the two can interact. We do the same thing for religions like Christianity, and Judaism as well.

Thanks for the in depth posts.

Most of it will be lost on those here though as they do not want to get into that detail. Most here just want to demand that Islam is evil or that Christianity is bad and then inject some left/right into it. Sad as a whole religion is not really the problem here and mischaracterization and understanding actually exacerbates the real problems.

It is difficult to address reality if no one really wants to understand it.

 

[daveman]

GHook, you can drag up all the Muslim Bogeymen you want.

I'm still of the attitude of "Fuck Israel" and all the wars it keeps dragging us into.

Ja, Ja, sehr gut, mein Freund! Sie erfreuen mich außerordentlich!

If you don't want to be called a Nazi, don't say Nazi shit, dumbfuck.

Ball's in your court. Keep whining.

 

[Lipush]

Kuwaiti Scholar Jassem Al-Mutawa: Wife Beating in Islam Treats Women Suffering from Masochism - YouTube

These are from the mouth of the lion. He said them and he owns them. Nothing out of context.

Summary:
(1) Beating are not only allowed by the Koran they are promoted by the Koran.
(2) Without wife beatings the family dynamic breaks down and leads to divorce.
(3) Using harsh words towards a disobedient wife is a must, aka spousal mental abuse is an Islamic duty! Don't leave out breaking her down mentally also!
(4) Refusal of sex is a just reason to beat your wive.
(5) Beat your wive with one of the assortment of rods. They are the "Rods of Obedience." Do you see the size of some of those rods. They are huge. Broken bones all in the name of Islam, so it AOK.
(6) Beating one's wife is a Husband's RIGHT. He can't be prosecuted under the law, unless he kills her!
(7) A wife has no right to beat her husband, even in self-defense. "Islam spared the wife of a need to use violence." However, a wife can get another man to beat her husband, but only after she goes to court and the court awards it. Yep fat chance of that happening.
(8) Comical moment in the broadcast: Beating your wife with a handkerchief is considered "extreme" and even laughable. I would do no damage.
(9) Beating your wife sends a message: "I'm not pleased with your behavior."
(10) The cure to the mental disorders of sadism and masochism? You guessed it - BEATING YOUR WIFE!!! Not only does the Koran allow this it promotes it as a cure! Don't take the Koran's word for it, Islamic psychiatrist say it's the cure and regularly tell the husbands of their patients to start beating their wives!
(11) BIGGEST FABRICATION: The scholar actually claims: "No women died from Islamic wife beatings." OK nutbar!

those who say its ok to hit your wife, should remember then when she serves them breakfast like the kings they believe they are, she may just "slip" something deadly into their coffee

 

[Esmeralda]

Those tenets are cruel, unfair, and inhumane. If mainstream Islam truly adheres to them, then that is to their shame.

Mainstream Islam does not adhere to those ideas. You are given an example of one extremist and are asked to assume that he speaks for most Muslims. It's like believing the head of the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all Christians. Don't be gullible.

 

[Osomir]

Kinda like the requirement for 4 male witnesses when a woman accuses a man of rape, huh?

Well once again that is highly dependent on the jurisprudential area and type of sharia code set. For example that isn't really the way the Ottoman Empire (perhaps the most powerful Islamic empire in history) operated. I've had the opportunity to study historical legal cases from Ottoman era documents, and have seen rape cases against women where most of the witnesses called in court were women, (there weren't four males). A particular case that springs to my mind is one from 1854 in which a slave woman who was raped and impregnated by her master takes him to court and wins. Her name was Shemsigul, and she made it through the entire court process and ruling by the Grand Mufti without four male witnesses and did it not only as a woman, but as a slave as well, and one who had a child out of wedlock.

If we are going by your generalizations and stereotypes, you would probably assume that she would be stoned to death, killed, or otherwise punished for being raped, but she wasn't, and that is just one example out of thousands that defy popular western stereotypes and generalizations, and one that stems from a much earlier time period at that.

It really does depend on the specific region and community that you are looking at. Generalizations involving over a billion people spread out in such geographically and culturally diverse ways generally don't tend to hold up too well.

Yes, except there are no Jewish and Christian atrocities to whitewash, are there?

This statement strikes me as being somewhat ignorant of our own history as western peoples. We have done A LOT of violence while utilizing religious discourse as a means of justification. We're talking tens to hundreds of millions of deaths relating directly to Christian populations. I think we also tend to forget that most of Sub-Saharan Africa is pretty deeply Christian (in fact one of the fastest growing Christian regions in the world). We simply know enough about Christianity since we have grown up with it in our culture to be able to put such historical and modern violence into proper context and realize the diversity that exists within Christianity and the depth that other non-religious factors often play when it comes to violence within Christian populated areas. Unfortunately it seems that some of us don't really know enough about Islam to be able to show it the same courtesy; which is fine, but it becomes not fine when instead of reserving judgement due to our ignorance, we instead generalize and jump to conclusions despite the fact that say you might not really know much about Islamic law sets or traditional cultural sets within Islamic populations.

When it comes down to it, you have to be honest with yourself about the depth of your knowledge on the subject in question, and how that level of knowledge (whatever it may be) might affect your opinions and understanding of the topic at hand.

 

[daveman]

Kinda like the requirement for 4 male witnesses when a woman accuses a man of rape, huh?

Well once again that is highly dependent on the jurisprudential area and type of sharia code set. For example that isn't really the way the Ottoman Empire (perhaps the most powerful Islamic empire in history) operated. I've had the opportunity to study historical legal cases from Ottoman era documents, and have seen rape cases against women where most of the witnesses called in court were women, (there weren't four males). A particular case that springs to my mind is one from 1854 in which a slave woman who was raped and impregnated by her master takes him to court and wins. Her name was Shemsigul, and she made it through the entire court process and ruling by the Grand Mufti without four male witnesses and did it not only as a woman, but as a slave as well, and one who had a child out of wedlock.

If we are going by your generalizations and stereotypes, you would probably assume that she would be stoned to death, killed, or otherwise punished for being raped, but she wasn't, and that is just one example out of thousands that defy popular western stereotypes and generalizations, and one that stems from a much earlier time period at that.

It really does depend on the specific region and community that you are looking at. Generalizations involving over a billion people spread out in such geographically and culturally diverse ways generally don't tend to hold up too well.

Yes, except there are no Jewish and Christian atrocities to whitewash, are there?

This statement strikes me as being somewhat ignorant of our own history as western peoples. We have done A LOT of violence while utilizing religious discourse as a means of justification. We're talking tens to hundreds of millions of deaths relating directly to Christian populations. I think we also tend to forget that most of Sub-Saharan Africa is pretty deeply Christian (in fact one of the fastest growing Christian regions in the world). We simply know enough about Christianity since we have grown up with it in our culture to be able to put such historical and modern violence into proper context and realize the diversity that exists within Christianity and the depth that other non-religious factors often play when it comes to violence within Christian populated areas. Unfortunately it seems that some of us don't really know enough about Islam to be able to show it the same courtesy; which is fine, but it becomes not fine when instead of reserving judgement due to our ignorance, we instead generalize and jump to conclusions despite the fact that say you might not really know much about Islamic law sets or traditional cultural sets within Islamic populations.

When it comes down to it, you have to be honest with yourself about the depth of your knowledge on the subject in question, and how that level of knowledge (whatever it may be) might affect your opinions and understanding of the topic at hand.

I'm talking about today, not 1854.

Abuse of U.S. Muslim Women Is Greater Than Reported, Advocacy Groups Say | Fox News

For Some Muslim Wives, Abuse Knows No Borders

Domestic Violence Series: A Hidden Evil and Muslim Communities | MuslimMatters.orgMuslimMatters.org

CFWIntro.pdf - By Nitro PDF Software



The steps for keeping evil from your family (because all evil comes from the wife, apparently):

Step 1: Admonishment.

Step 2. Withhold affection.

Step 3. Physical force -- "a light beating". May not leave any type of mark, may not break the skin, may not break a bone.

Sooo...are you going to keep whitewashing Islam's promotion of domestic abuse?

 

[JoeB131]

[q

If you don't want to be called a Nazi, don't say Nazi shit, dumbfuck.

Ball's in your court. Keep whining.

I see no difference between Nazis and Zionists.

Zionists are like abused children who have gotten big enough to beat on someone else.

They don't deserve any sympathy.

 

[daveman]

[q

If you don't want to be called a Nazi, don't say Nazi shit, dumbfuck.

Ball's in your court. Keep whining.

I see no difference between Nazis and Zionists.

Zionists are like abused children who have gotten big enough to beat on someone else.

They don't deserve any sympathy.

Who cares what you think, you terrorist-loving stupid Commie bastard?

 

[JoeB131]

I see no difference between Nazis and Zionists.

Zionists are like abused children who have gotten big enough to beat on someone else.

They don't deserve any sympathy.

Who cares what you think, you terrorist-loving stupid Commie bastard?

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

 

[Toro]

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

And Americans are "just like Nazis" because they wanted the natives' land and took it.

Oooooh, massive analogy fail!

 

[daveman]

Who cares what you think, you terrorist-loving stupid Commie bastard?

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

If you have to ask, you're fucked in the head.

And you had to ask.

 

[JoeB131]

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

And Americans are "just like Nazis" because they wanted the natives' land and took it.

Oooooh, massive analogy fail!

Not at all.

What white people did to my Cherokee ancestors WAS fucking Genocide.

The Cherokees just don't own Hollywood to keep bitching about it.

 

[JoeB131]

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

If you have to ask, you're fucked in the head.

And you had to ask.

Caveman, that isn't an answer.

Why is taking someone else shit and their lives okay when one group does it and not another.

Now, I'm a cynic. I don't see history as being divided by good and bad guys. Usually it's bad guys and worse guys.

In the case of the Zionists, they took someone else's land and wonder why they are still at war 60 years later.

 

[Toro]

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

And Americans are "just like Nazis" because they wanted the natives' land and took it.

Oooooh, massive analogy fail!

Not at all.

What white people did to my Cherokee ancestors WAS fucking Genocide.

The Cherokees just don't own Hollywood to keep bitching about it.

That's right. There's "no difference" between the Nazis and the Americans.



Outstanding.

 

[daveman]

You do, or you wouldn't be following me around.

Okay, the Nazis wanted Poland's Land, and they took it.

The Zionists wanted Palestine's Land, and they took it.

What's the difference again?

If you have to ask, you're fucked in the head.

And you had to ask.

Caveman, that isn't an answer.

Why is taking someone else shit and their lives okay when one group does it and not another.

Now, I'm a cynic. I don't see history as being divided by good and bad guys. Usually it's bad guys and worse guys.

In the case of the Zionists, they took someone else's land and wonder why they are still at war 60 years later.

But you have no problem with terrorists taking Jews' lives.

Fuck this. I don't talk to terrorist-felchers.