Australian Cleric Defends Right of Husbands to Beat Their Wives and Force Them to Have Sex

220px-kevinruddzoomAustralian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has weighed into a religious controversy, demanding a retraction and an apology from Islamic cleric Samir Abu Hamza for telling followers that they can beat their wives and force them to have sex under the Koran — in violation of Australian law.

The statement appears in a video of a 2003 lecture that has been posted on the Internet. Despite the Australian law requiring consent and criminalizing spousal abuse, Hamza says that, while the last resort, the Koran allows husbands to beat their wives and force them to have sex against their wishes: “If the husband was to ask her for a sexual relationship and she is preparing the bread on the stove she must leave it and come and respond to her husband, she must respond.” To make matters worse, Hamza ridiculed the secular laws of the country: “In this country if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn’t got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force … it is known to be as rape . . . Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?” Well, by beating her and forcing her to have sex. Does that explain things better?

Hamza has said that husband should not turn to violence unless as a last resort, but “You are not allowed to bruise them, you are not allowed to make them bleed. . . . This is just to shape them up, shape up woman – that is about it . . . You don’t go and grab a broomstick and say that is what Allah has said.”

This reminds me of an old Louisiana law that said that a husband could not beat his wife with a stick thicker than his thumb.

For the full story, click here.

15 thoughts on “Australian Cleric Defends Right of Husbands to Beat Their Wives and Force Them to Have Sex”

  1. To rafflaw:
    Please read this beautiful article on the following website (it is too long to copy here):

    From it you can see the high regard woman is held by G-d in Judaism.

  2. mespo,

    Good quote. Where’s that from? I’m not a Swift aficionado.

  3. Mike Appleton:

    Great Jonathan Swift quote. Here’s my favorite:

    “It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind.”

  4. This is an example of how women are abused and taken advantage of in almost every major religion. Some religions take it to an extreme, but many just discriminate against women and deny them equal rights to the top positions in their respective religions. I look forward to the day when the Catholic Church allows women to be priests and actually ascend to be Pope. I don’t think I should hold my breath.

  5. I must admit that when I read a story like this, my reason simply leaves me and I have to fall back on the opinion of the human race offered by the king of the giants after hearing Gulliver’s discussion of the people and culture of England: “I cannot but conclude the Bulk of your Natives to be the most pernicious Race of little odious Vermin that Nature ever suffered to crawl upon the Surface of the Earth.”

  6. I am surprised at the number of comments on the source article that are state the story is another instance of “muslim bashing”. Wife beating should never be tolerated. This isn’t about religious freedom, it’s about human rights.

  7. mespo,

    Thank you, kind sir. If they have an extra seat, I’ll put in a good word for you.


    You once again post with clarity and wisdom. But I submit to you that the argument is simpler. Not as in reduction to the absurd, but as in a simple syllogism that serves as a both a root and an analytical tool for evaluating not only moral behaviors that religions condone, but also evaluating the positive or negative impact of ethical reasoning. God (by any name) is love (good) or God is ego (evil). One does not have to illustrate the fact that evil is often rooted in ego – from greed (I deserve more than everyone else!) to serial killers (I am God.) – “I” is the operative condition. Our history is full of examples. In looking at outcomes, it is possible for good to come from evil and evil to come from good, but generally speaking one does not create the other. If your reasoning uses this axiom like an ethical Occam’s Razor, it is impossible by definition to get an outcome where your version of God as Love encourages violence, rape and pedophilia. When you see through this prism, it leads to one conclusion (among many). Fundamentalism in any God’s name is simply code for ego leading to hatred and intolerance. Exclusionary thought from people supposedly following a messenger of inclusion? Jesus and Buddha had a common message – “God” is on the inside and that’s where you’ll find him, but so is “the Devil”. Sure, they use different terms, but they are talking about the same thing. And they came to the same conclusion. The choice of which one to encourage is yours. Christians call it free will while Buddhists know correct thought and action are part of the 8 Fold Path (and deviation from the path leads to increased suffering). Do you seek the nature of God within or do you cozy up to Satan and build your empires of dirt on the bodies of the dead? Do you seek the common good or are you just looking out for Number 1? Is the reasoning based in love or ego and does the logic parse structurally?

    Just a thought I’ve found useful in theological and ethical discussions. It makes sorting out the bad guys a lot easier.

  8. Here is a great rendition of ‘Kingdom Coming/The Year of Jubilo’ using the original African-American stereotypical dialect and with some fine ‘banger’ pickin’

  9. I do believe there are basic philosophical truths for human beings as instruction for living a good (happy, constructive, humble, pious)life contained in the tenets of religion. Then too prophets such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha and Mohamed produced much wisdom in that direction. That said, thank God I’m not a prophet because it seems that another characteristic of providing religious belief and philosophy, is that people who have no concept of the original intent always seem to take over and reinterpret it, in terms of their own ignorance and inhumanity. That this man is considered to be a religious leader is a joke. In that context though we see plenty examples of such “jokesters” in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all the other “isms.”

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a simple concept that is at root of all religious belief and yet it gets morphed by fools like this into modalities for causing harm and despair in others. If one believes that there is a creative force that affects the universe, as I do, the concomitant belief of some that we as human beings can interpret the nature, or consciousness of that force is by its nature illogical and ego maniacal. We can only make poorly educated guesses as to what can be expected of us and discover for ourselves rough approximations of what a “good” life constitutes. The opening sentence of this paragraph represent the belief I try to live up to and I think is a worthy human philosophy.

    Atheists and agnostics please note that I make no judgment on your understanding of the Cosmos, since you are as likely as anyone to live productive lives and easily can be better human beings than most of the fools who put themselves forward as religious leaders.

  10. Buddha dun sayed ‘dis:

    “It’s nice to know you can beat and rape your 10 year old wife and still “g’wann up ta Hebben’”.

    That “g’wann up ta Hebben” phrase reminded me of my favorite ‘darkey’ folk song from the Civil War/Emancipation Proclamation Era (1863) called ‘Kingdom’s Coming’ or ‘The Year of Jubilo’:

    “Say, darkies, hab you seen de massa, wid de muffstash on his face,

    Go long de road some time dis mornin’, like he gwine to leab de place?

    He seen a smoke way up de ribber, whar de Linkum gunboats lay;

    He took his hat, and lef’ berry sudden, and I spec’ he’s run away!

    De massa run, ha, ha! De darkey stay, ho, ho!

    It mus’ be now de kingdom coming, an’ de year ob Jubilo!”

    An’ de massa G.W. Bush dun run away Ha, Ha! Dun run away to stay! Ho, Ho!

    And what a amazing day that we now have a “Darkey” for President of the United States, about 145 years after ‘The Year of Jubilo’! Is this a great country, or what!?

    Thanks for the laugh Buddha!

  11. Buddha:

    Q: Is there intelligent life on Earth?

    A: Yes but apparently Buddha is only visiting.

  12. It’s nice to know you can beat and rape your 10 year old wife and still “g’wann up ta Hebben'”. Are you allowed to beat the virgins Mohamed gives you once you get there? Women are chattel after all.

    Listen up, zealous screwheads of all flavors.

    If technologically sophisticated alien life is watching Earth, this is the kind of primitive retrograde bullshit that keeps this planet under quarantine. Seriously, would you want to make first contact with humans after reading something like this? Or would you want to sterilize the surface of the Earth? You certainly wouldn’t want us roaming about in civilized galactic society. You just can’t tell what we’re going to try to beat and rape next. We, as a species, are obviously not civilized and probably wouldn’t qualify for the alien version of being “house broken” yet alone civil if we allow this kind of behavior. Look at it with an anthropological eye and tell me I’m wrong. Contrary to Perry Farrell’s (of Jane’s Addiction) assertion to the contrary, we wouldn’t make good pets.

    I just hope the Mothership hasn’t forgotten they dropped me off, but I suspect I may have missed my ride.

  13. Why is there no law that if a husband does not do what the wife wants him to do (mow the lawn, fix the dryer, take out the trash, etc), she can beat him up?

    I mean, if the lawn needs mowed and he’s just sitting there watching tv, drinking a beer, then why can’t she hit him with a frying pan to get his butt in gear? Fair is fair.

    That is just crazy

  14. “The statement appears in a video of a 2003 lecture that has been posted on the Internet.”


    Dear Professor Turley:

    Please check the date on this. I think the video is from 1203. Amazing the technology those Muslim aboriginals had. Well they did contribute mightily to mathematics.

Comments are closed.