Egyptian Sheikh: A wife has the right to beat up her man

Remove all ads!

...Just trying to do my part to become to focus of irrational attacks and misplaced retailiation....

 

NOG the only real experience I have as the only thing I knew about arab christians up to last week was that they were a rather supressed minority. One of my current pupils is an iraqi christian though, nice enough kid very motivated really wants to be an airplane mechanic. I got to talking to the class last week about the middle east, the situation in the world (I try to do this at times as they are generally horribly ignorant, ignorant enough that I can't even attempt to brainwash them with my radical ideas )and he without shame told me and the class that he or his father did not allow his sisters to go out alone, that they were not allowed to have boyfriends that they would not be allowed to pick their future husbands and that if they dared to oppose the men in the family they would be beaten up. This was nothing strange for him, he didn't feel any shame or apprehension telling me this that was just the natural order of things for him. He had friends keeping a watch on his sisters in the school she went in so she couldn't do anything there. A female misbehaving is a terrible shame for the entire family and they are supposed to know their place. When I first met this family they struck me as quite secular modern people, his mother looked like any middleaged woman no special clothing or anything but there we go.

 

It is possible. I have read more than a few articles detailing the possible radicalization of local Muslims, and though so far there aren't any hints of religious unrest here (Turkey is not exactly Islamic, which impacts the beliefs of the Turkish minorities), it is possible that not all of these articles are xenophobic propaganda.

The general idea these articles spread is this: with the rising tide of Saudi Arabia's oil fortunes, its islamic foundations have received a notable boost in funding as well. Nothing new there - afaik almsgiving, which may include support for charities, is an actual duty of all muslims. Now, some of these foundations have began programs for education of islamic clergy to preach abroad, and supplied these clerics with support. Others support foreign islamic communities or projects in other means - i.e. funding the building of mosques, religious courses, etc. Thus, you have a steady influx of Wahabi-educated imams in many countries, coupled with support for their Muslim communities coming from Saudi foundations (and even if these foundations do not ask for anything in advance, the locals would probably be mindful who gives the money). The two eventually may lead to radicalization of local Islamic communities; even where the community in general prefers a more moderate stance, some members may gravitate around the hardliners (who are also well-funded* and may engage in various charity works or education programs on their own). The problem is, as I said local moderates may be at a financial disadvantage, and - especially if there is some social alienation, which in most minority communities is a given - the newcomers will have a fair few likely converts. Also, they have a generational advantage - they are generally young, so with time they would likely supplant some of the older local religious leaders. Now, this is all in Sunni communities (I don't know of any Shiite foundations that do likewise; chances are there may be such but their budget would be much lower) - but afaik most muslims in the West are Sunni.

It is worrying, yes. But it is more complex than just "Muslims are radicals, period." As for "Christian Muslims - did you mean Christian Arabs, or muslims in Christian countries?

*: I suppose they may not have gold credit cards, but it would be easy for them to petition Saudi foundations for grants - a) they know which ones and b) they have the kind of resume that would easily get the grant approved.

 

I like the ruling. Just make sure the woman has a frying pan in her hands when she gives him the two shots for his one!

 

I always thought a person be they man or woman were allowed to defend themselves.

 

I make a living teaching adult immigrants, the vast majority of whom are Muslims and the plurality of whom are Somali. When the topic of a woman who was punished in Saudi Arabia for having to audacity to be a rape victim came up, many of them basically said something along the lines that it was her fault that she hadn't been more careful.

I never once said that they have to prove to me they aren't terrorists. What I did say was what several Muslim scholars I have heard on the radio have said, which is that moderates should speak out against the excesses of their radical brethren. Instead, their silence is often seen as tacit support for those excesses. I even mentioned that in some cases said moderates keep quiet due to fear of violent retaliation, but my position that a decent and formerly tolerant faith has been, in the present day, hijacked by some pretty wildly fanatical individuals, remains unchanged.

Going back to the Muslims I know, with some of them it's very easy to see the contempt they have for the society that took them in. Most of them are decent, grateful, hardworking people* but the other few to whom I am referring really get under my skin -- they have no respect at all for Canadian culture or values -- their derision for the people who support them charitably is painfully obvious, and it's people like them that worry me.

*it's immigrants like these that we need in the western world and these people are the ones who make my job worth doing.

 

Shaman:

I never said or meant to suggest that all muslims are radicals, but they are far from an invisible minority, even here in the US. I myself have known some very nice and kind muslims, but what do you do when a large, influential block of a group (religious, racial, or other) has decided you need to die?

Damn you and your corrections! I meant Christian Arabs, yes.

 

Well, no argument here, you need to do something about it. However, these values have to be internalized and come within the community; so if the moderates don't seem willing to step up, perhaps there should be a way to encourage them to do so. Yes, it may be hard, but someone has to do it.

BTW, my opinion on the OP was that, to a degree, it is a relatively moderate position being put forth. Yes, in a fight the wife would probably lose. However, by saying that the wife is not required to accept this punishment. this fatwa (or whatever it is, exactly) means that Islam does not give the husband an express right to beat her - because if it did, she wouldn't be able to not accept it. Thus, beating (or at least beating that may cause corporal injury) is NOT religiously sanctioned - and can not be legitimized by Islam. Furthermore, beating is not spoken of as a punishment (thus at some point legitimate, if overly harsh), but an bodily assault, in which the husband is to be given no special treatment. Perhaps this was prompted by a case where the woman was seriously injured; I do not know the circumstances. It could potentially be a landmark case, though, because it appears to delegitimize domestic violence.

Would it be better to have said "Do not beat your wife?" Probably. Yet I think that effectively saying "Allah does not grant you the right to beat up your wife" is not bad, either. It's up to the local clergy how to interpret this and adjudicate based on it, but I do think it's a step in the right direction. At least, if it does not trigger a reaction against "liberal judges" and them changing the Sharia

I don't know of any empirical data, but here's a bit of anecdotal evidence - one of my best friends did his BA in Furman U, and dated an Egyptian girl (Christian, btw) for a while. I don't know of any public executions or such, but apparently they were pretty conservative - apparently above the norm for South Carolina. As for beating the wives... IMO that's something that is often under the radar, but tends to happen almost everywhere.

 

Ahem.

 

Oh, definitely. It would be interesting to see if the radicals backing terrorism would be brought back into the fold... or exiled from it, if they have not been already.

 

You mean like this? Turns out all you have to do to de-radicalize someone is put them in prison for a couple decades. Who knew it could be so simple?

 

A few years of prison sometimes work. Sometimes, they don't, though.

 

Using the typical recidivism rates for most other crimes as a benchmark, the likelihood would be that they usually don't work.

 

Hmm, what are the standard recidivism rates?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

 

Shades of 1984 perhaps..?

 

Possibly, but you never know. The thing is, even if recidivism was 90% there would still be plenty of individual cases where time in prison did work, and vice versa.

Personally, I think he might be trying to score good behavior points here. Remember when it was that Macchiaveli wrote his "The Prince"?