“One Should Not Beat Out of Anger”: Egyptian Cleric Explains The Proper Islamic Approach To Wife Beating

We have previously seen Muslim clerics instruct men on how to beat their wives in an Islamically correct way. Egyptian cleric Abd Al-Rahman gave the latest installment on Al-Nas television — affirming the need for men to beat their wives as did Mohammad.

Al-Rahman noted that Mohammad beat at least one of his wives, Aisha. Aisha was believed to be nine when she married Mohammad, who had multiple wives.

Al-Rahman explained:

Islam instructs a man to beat his wife as a last resort before divorce, so that she will mend her ways, treat him with kindness and respect, and know that her husband has a higher status than her.

I say to every husband: Do not rush to beat her whenever a problem arises. Oh servant of Allah, Allah said: “Admonish those of them on whose part you fear disobedience, refuse to share their beds, and beat them.” One should not beat out of anger. . .

This you must know: If the wife utters the name of God, the beating must stop. . . .

When ‘Aisha thought ill of the Prophet Muhammad, believing that he did not treat her the same as his other wives, and that when he left her room, he would go to another wife, she followed him and spied on him. ‘Aisha said that when the Prophet found out about this, “He gave me a shove that was painful.”

This was done in order to discipline her, not because the Prophet enjoyed beating or inflicting bodily harm. The Prophet did this in order to discipline this woman. . .

A good woman, even if beaten by her husband, puts her hand in his and says: “I will not rest until you are pleased with me.” This is how the Prophet Muhammad taught his women to be.

The disconnect between such historical examples and modern values is extraordinary. Today, the described marriage would violate three different parts of the criminal code — a type of trifecta of felonies. The marriage to a nine year old would be viewed as child rape occurring within a polygamous marriage with spousal abuse. Of course, many of the Biblical figures also married young girls and were polygamists.

Al-Rahman’s insistence that beatings are part of a good marriage based on Qur’an 4:34.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

The advice captures the plight of women in this part of the world who are beaten under spiritual guidance from clerics like Al-Rahman. However, he is not alone. The second-class status of women has been affirmed by our stalwart ally in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai.

Source: Times of Israel

67 thoughts on ““One Should Not Beat Out of Anger”: Egyptian Cleric Explains The Proper Islamic Approach To Wife Beating”

  1. Nick,

    This USA is not nor has ever been a “to each his own” world. Only the plains pioneer could have briefly clained that. And he did nt enjoy his isolation.

    USA it in effect a complex society, subject to many influences and restraints of many kinds.
    A “laissez-faire” (let it happen) position lead ALWAYS to some winding up on top and using coercive measures on the weaker mmembers of society.

    Do you endorse that concrete reality which embracing your ideal will lead to, and has lead to through corporatist resistance to government regulation.

    TonyC can explain the benefits of regulation better than I, and its necessity.

    Let’s hope he joins us.

  2. Id, Beautifully said :I admire Islam for three reasons:
    —-brotherhood within the kindredness of the Book (Bible and descendants of Abraham)
    —-brotherhood within the Umma (congregation of Islam)
    (none are excluded for reasons of color or origin)
    —-brotherhood of all mankind.
    it is indeed a feast for the eyes and the heart in the mosque or near the kaaba to look around and see humanity in its variety, its diversity, in tone and hues, in highs and lows, in larges and in thins, in males and females, all white clothed and united in the rituals of the prophets and the religions of then.
    The question you asked is very interesting, but as you imagine, very difficult to answer. The salafists are ones who, in the name of religious purity, are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. Their presence in the arabian peninsula is not new, for there has always been in that area nests of discontent, people for whom their religion was tainted by foreign practices, usurping rulers, illegal treaties…They have always been present in Saudi Arabia, kept from fanning their flames by a monarchy aware of the danger they pose to its rule. That monarchy mollified them with favors and social clout, the power to establish social rules and enforce them.(which is why Saudi Arabia is one of the most suppressive regimes for women). The most extreme salafists, those eager to fight, showed up in islamic conflicts around the world, especially in Afghanistan against the Russians. Osama Bin laden made his marks there and took the movement out of the shadows through the blowing up of the world trade center. His message was that they were no longer letting foreign empires take over their holy places, thereby tainting and occupying their religion. Rather, they will bring the fight to them , awash they were now with money, enthusiasm, arms and recruits.
    As it is for most Islamic movements, it is less about the religion than it is about politics. Whether the cause is Palestine, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Libya or Syria, the method is the same: Some young men frustrated with the images of their coreligionists (here comes your point about the brotherhood across races and origins) killed, maimed and oppressed by foreign troops or their proxies, decide to fight those forces militarily, or deceptively by blowing themselves up. Now on the religious front, these men are convinced that their action is noble and worthy of many rewards in the afterlife because they are engaged in the noblest religious pursuit, jihad, although the Quran specifically says that NO One can take their own life no matter the circumstance, and jihad really means an internal pursuit of mastering one’s self.
    My humble opinion is that we are in an era where young men see donning explosive vests to make the point of their elders as a natural course of action. we are also in an era where people no longer want to be oppressed, whether by foreign or their own governments. People see fighting for their rights even to the death a better option than suffering passively under oppression. Those are political stances, yes, with social ramifications and supported by religious concepts, but political nonetheless; and these will remain and spread, and create more conflicts until they successfully change the course of history. Whether for better of for worse is the question.

  3. ID, bettykath was a bit whiney. Ayn Rand was a libertarian but so are a vast spectrum of people. We’re fiscally conservative and culturally left or left leaning, some are right leaning. The key is we do not try to impose our morals, whatever they may be, on others..to each their own.

  4. Nick,

    I may be wrong so correct me. (Am too lazy to wiki it now).

    Isn’t libertarian associated with Ayn Rand and “damn the proles who hinder we the elite by dragging us down”????

    So if that is correct then can’t see you on that platform with them.

    Your PI experience speaks normally with another tongue I thought.
    That is the person I am talking with I hope.
    Or has someone taken over your signature?

  5. Nick,

    You can beat me on word choice all you want. I chose “feel” to imply modesty as opposed to certainty.

    If that is all you have in response I feel I will not have to change my opinions, note opinions, no more than that.

    “Our FF created a great country. Flawed, absolutely. However, they did not create the duopoly, that evolved over decades. I’m a practical man and know if WE want to pierce the w/m duopoly, we have to do it ourselves. Whining is for losers.”

    Our FF’s did not do anything other than divide up the power. They did create an unusual structure. First, it was without a king, a first. Secondly, it had the structure we know so well.

    But worst they had a duopoly in place before the document was signed in 1789 or 90. Federalist and anti-federalist. Guess who was the most corrupted of the two.

    Do it ourselves is not an issue as far as I know.

    And as for whining, I hope you were not implying that I am.

    Cheers.

  6. id, When people talk about what they “feel” and their “reasoning” in the same breath, I realize they are not focused. I “feel” like I should be able to eat whatever I want. I know[reason] I need to watch what I eat to maintain health. Our FF created a great country. Flawed, absolutely. However, they did not create the duopoly, that evolved over decades. I’m a practical man and know if WE want to pierce the w/m duopoly, we have to do it ourselves. Whining is for losers.

  7. Nick,

    You know the streets but don’t think you know libertarianism. Your mention of the FFs was hysterically funny. The FFs as both MikeS said and I acknowledge from my own reasoning were not the people.
    They were neither our surrogates nor our representatives. They represented the rich and propertied in their respective enterprises, ie colonies.

    And the sole** reason they met was as I feel to reach a collusion on division of central very limited power and a greater freedom at the colony/state level.
    All this was in the final step thrown overboard in the 1920/30s, when the up to then requirement for amendments to extend federal powers was discarded forever up until now. That is how we got here.

    Amazes me that you cite the authorities of the FFs with one breath and call down the ones you have
    encountered in your work with the next breath.
    That really makes me confused

    ** I believe that Mikes said that they met with an additional purpose to deceive the populace to do their work in the war with England. Not unlike what the powers that be do today. Are our demographic resources strained? Are our windows dotted with gold stars (what do they do today to carry the message of a loss, flying the flag upside down on the pole from the roof edge???)

  8. Take that guy with the headress, put him in a crate. tie the crate to the top of a station wagon and drive him from NY to Alaska in the winter. The Willard Dog’s experience.

  9. Well, I did say above that:
    —-women need awhile to come up to speed in this world, so don’t expect too much. The ones who have ( google Sibelius) have been blocked but effective anyway, so they get transferred or replaced by 40 year useless old male dogs.
    —–women in a legislative are, in America, still in a position of being forced to sell themselves for campaign money. Here they sell themself for position which they sometimes can not fill. They have not been toughened enough in the frey before reaching the top.

  10. “i agree that positive reinforcement works better and quicker than corporal punishment on those who have a decent moral compass. ”

    That reads like you’re implying that wives need to be trained. If you really do think that, you’re only better than the cleric in question by the slimmest of margins.

  11. bettykath, I don’t disagree w/ you. I’ve said several times here the problem w/ our politics is the duopoly. However, it’s naive to think people in power will ever magnaimously relinquish it. The only person I have ever heard CONSISTENTLY talk about the controlling duopoly was Ralph Nader. Would it be hard to find the balance..damn straight. As my immigrant Uncle Charlie would say, “When the job is hard you must simply work harder.” Nobody gives you anything in this world..well, maybe mom does. Otherwise, you got to work and earn it. Independents are now the majority and we get bigger every year. We may reach critical mass soon.

  12. nick, Those in power, mostly white men, have made the rules such that major change via vote is not possible. Even those who would consider the platforms of the Greens, the Libertarians, and whoever else is out there in a favorable light, the rules already established have huge bars for them to jump to get on the ballot. And you won’t see the “others” in the debates which are totally controlled by the those same old white geezers, well, some of them are fairly young but they act like old geezers. It’s no wonder that so many don’t bother to vote.

  13. id, Libertarianism is quite simple. We are the government and we believe in limited government, individiual rights and personal responsibility..you know, like the folks who wrote the Constitution. So, while I would love to see a balance in govt. vis a vis sex, nationality, etc. it must come from the people..their votes, not an edict from any branch of govt.

  14. The general level of ignorance about religion in general and Islam in particular is stunning. Amy, dear girl, you might want to be aware that there are many denominations and millions of followers of the various Christian Bibles that believe they are 100% the inerrant word of God & not just allegories. The exact same range of beliefs exist in Islam.

    Zara – only if we similarly agree to nuke all the Christian nations too. As is constantly demonstrated there is not a single “sin” committed by followers and leaders of one that are not also ‘sins’ of the other. Since they both believe in the exact same Cosmic Muffin/Hairy Thunderer he can then sort out the one he want to keep.

    My guess is a lot of the ignorance is self-imposed because of the sense of superiority it gives its owner

  15. We should not NUKE Muslim Countries out of Anger…. we should Nuke them for the betterment of Humanity………

  16. idealist707 1, September 5, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Dredd,

    Haven’t forgotten you, bro. I assumed the link was to you and hubris. Asch how I fooled myself. That news was indeed unexpected. Will check it carefully later.
    ===================================
    Just sing three stanzas of Flume, by Bon Iver above, and fugedddabouttitt dood … 😉

Comments are closed.