What mainstream media reports such as this one never acknowledge is that this advice comes directly from Qur'an 4:34:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). 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.
Then again, many Muslims, including one "moderate" Muslim student at Dartmouth last week who called the mere notion that the Qur'an endorses wife-beating "incorrect and offensive," won't either. And you can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming, or what you won't acknowledge to exist.
Video at MEMRI. From Fox News:
Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.
He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.
"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.
"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.
[...]
Even his attempts at counseling restraint are bizarre and disturbing:
He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.
"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."
His final words of wisdom?
"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.
"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
In my prayers tonight Saudi women, children, donkeys and camels. "Like he would beat an animal or a child...slapping them right and left?" Guess there are no horse whisperers in Saudi Arabia!
Incidentally, if men are not supposed to hit their wives on the face in the first place, how could their other beating possibly make their faces ugly?
Islam definitely takes the damn cake when it comes to taking all of the worst aspects of human nature, wrapping them up in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and calling the whole stinking package "divine". Islam has the spiritual and philosophical depth of a freakin' puddle. It's like the cockroach of religions, which is why it'll probably outlive the lot of us.
Praise Allah that there is a right way to beat your wife. Also, there is a right way to beat camels and donkeys too.
How wonderful.
we should ask MCB and CAIR how they feel about this ruiling. record it secretly and sell it to the national enquirer. well i doubt anyone would even want to listen to it unless it was britney spears or dog.
wonder who will be famous in hollywood once 5-6 US cities have been nuked?
I've always liked the part about not sharing their beds as admonishment or punishment. I'll bet that really hurts, not being mauled by stinky Abdul. Those poor women just won’t be able to take it after a day or two of being sexually shunned by the likes of Adam Gadahn. They'll shape up for sure to get a little of that sweet lovin' LOL. Who's your daddy?
If it weren't for images from van Gogh's "Submission" seared into our minds, not to mention all the dead bodies strewn everywhere, Muslims would be about the funniest things on God's green Earth.
It's nice to know there is a "right way" to beat the one you love. Oh, you do love her, don't you? Funny way of showing it.
"He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left."
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
I wonder whether D'Souzas and leftist liberals will consider these guys as allies or not?
I know the reactions of most moderate Muslims, they will say it is better than what O.J. does to his wife.
So if you just 'sorta' beat up your wife, thats ok...
Ah, the enlightenment one finds in Islamania. So refreshing, isn't it?
Why Muslimas don't rebel against this Stone Age madness I will never understand.
"I've always liked the part about not sharing their beds as admonishment or punishment. I'll bet that really hurts, not being mauled by stinky Abdul."
Yeah, and imagine how stiff those FGM scars get after a few days of disuse.
Yuck, Citizen! Thanks for that image LOL.
I always chuckle at the moniker of "haid dasalami", when he comments.
It is simply a weakness of mine.
Oh, and by the way, the Saudis suck and they are the mortal enemies of all things and cultures western.
*LOL* Ha, ha, I work with a bunch of women, many of whom are liberal dimbulbs, and whenever yet another terrorist bombing murder is in the news and the discussion at suppertime turns to the "Religion of Peace" I always ask, "Have you been reading your Koran, hhmmmm?" The conversation then goes something like this:
OotlfPl: "Ha,ha, have you been reading your Koran?"
Liberal dimbulb woman: "Uh...No." *puzzlement*
OotlfPl: "Well, I've been reading mine!" *LOL*
Liberal dimbulb woman: "You have a Koran??"
OotlfPl: "Yup." ( the Penguin/ Dawood edition )
OotlfPl: "You know, according to the Koran, your husband has the right to beat the S@#$ out of you." *LOL*
Liberal dimbulb woman: "What?! ... No! ... You're full of S@#$!"
OotlfPl: "Oh, yeah!" *LOL* Then I quote Sura 4:34. for their edification! They are usually rendered speechless.
Thus the Truth is getting out, but GAWD! it is a slow process.
During the piece, he goes on about only beating her with a toothpick, implying that the beating is symbolic only. But his later statements about not leaving marks where they will show imply something quite different: extreme violence.
Not that it really matters how 'light' they say these beatings should be. The whole concept is disgusting.
If your camel won't move, beat it.
if your donkey won't move, beat it.
If your woman won't move, beat it.
I get it. And there are woman who "revert" to Islam.
Must be crazy.
I'm a liberal, and I don't consider anyone who uses corporal violence as a means of control on women - much less on children - to be any kind of ally.
"BROTHER, IT IS A HUMAN BEING YOU ARE BEATING..."
Gosh what a 'lovely,caring, compassionate' man.
Not satisfied with brutally striking their beasts of Burden [then again guess wives are included in this category] the learned Doctor goes on to explain how you may beat your wife without leaving
'marks on her face.'
One thing I most detest about Islam is its Sanctified Cruelty but can see how this Stone Age
Cult appeals to depraved,sicko Males giving them
a clear mandate to rape,torture and kill...
What the bible says ,,
Eph 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Thanks for those verses, Joe Schmoe USA, they really blessed my heart. Too bad these women may never know such love from their husbands. Very, very sad.
It is highly unlikely the Muslim mind can ever understand equal rights as we understand them, where equality of men and women, and all human beings, is a doctrine of our freedoms. Certainly they are unable to understand Jeffersonian democracy, as Iraq and Afghanistan proves, nor can they understand our values of equality before the law and equality of our human rights. Arabs, and all Islam, is a slave culture of master and slave, where there is always someone above you in their pecking order to oppress you. This is doubly so for women, since they are only one half a man. It is a disgusting culture of tyranny, something Jefferson would have found revolting, as should all of us who believe in freedom. Beating of women is the lowest form of oppression by the weak. Islam is excessively weak, and lacks any noblity of the finess of what it means to be human. Islam as a vile culture of slavery must be banned from our free world, totally. They are a thousand years behind us, a primitive cult of slaves spawned by Mohammed.
This guy is nothing new. There are dozens and dozens of video advisories from Muslim clerics about how to properly beat your wife: the proper instigation, the exquisite timing, the appropriate weapon, the acceptable focus of the attacks, the sanctified force and tempo of the blows. It's really a Muslim art form.
To bevc -
the article under discussion throws a searing light on a little bit of history.
During World War One the Australian Light Horse, together with the English mounted and infantry troops, rolled back the Ottoman Turks from Egypt to Damascus.
After the war ended there was a problem - what to do with the horses (all of them Australian born and bred, many of them beautiful, willing, hardy animals)? The Lighthorsemen loved them like brothers.
For reasons of quarantine, or economics, or both, it was not possible to take them home. They could, of course, have been sold to the Arabs or simply turned loose to fall into Arab hands anyway (presumably no-one thought of selling them to the Jews in 'Palestine', or else, the Jews weren't able to buy or didn't have a use for them - they were horses for riding and raiding, not for ploughing or driving).
Rather than leave the horses to the tender mercies of the Arabs, whether the villagers or the Bedouin - and the soldiers throughout the campaign had been shocked and sickened by the breathtaking cruelty and indifference with which Bedouin and village Arabs treated their animals - the decision was made to shoot them all. Every last horse (only General Chauvel's personal mount came home alive). They shot them all, thousands of beautiful animals, and left them dead in the desert, rather than leave them alive to suffer the torments of the damned under the Arab whip.
There's a heart-rending ballad about it - "It's as if he knows". I can't recall the composer but you might be able to google it.
When I read this article, about the beating of wives and of children and livestock, I remembered.
What translation is that?
The problem with using the word scourge (verb)is that it does not always imply whipping. English speakers who have a Quran that uses the word scourge probably do not realize that in this context that scourge means to strike or whip; therefore, they deny that 4:34 permits beating.
The Yusuf Ali translation is more specific. "beat them lightly" Ali says. The degree of severity depends on whether one is the beater or the beatee. I guess a light beating just leaves bruises and no scars.
Feel the love...
May as well say it in their lying PR BS campaign:
"Islam: the religion of peace!...believe or we''ll f**kin' kill you! Now let's see how best to beat our wives..."
OoooooooooooooooooK.
...and for the rest of us, this is a reality check, aka, a really big clue something's amiss.
I sent this post to my local media this morning, as I've done with many other post from this site. I have never had a response from them.
With an elite so rotted from within by political correctness that they will not confront the enemy those of us who still love Freedom face an uphill battle against the evil that is Islam resurgent.
----
Do the Muslims in America have a theological refutation of this filth based on the central tenets of Islam? I would love to know. If only you of the media had the guts to ask them.
What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?
"The Yusuf Ali translation is more specific. "beat them lightly" Ali says."
Actually, Yusuf Ali has "beat them (lightly)".
The parenthetical words in 4:34 (and elsewhere)are interpretive additions. In other suwar and ayat, Yusuf Ali is just truly disingenuous in rendering the text with omissions and substitutions, as do other Muslim produced "Meanings" of the Qur'an in English.
For example 78:33
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/078.033.html
And to knock one of our favorite sources, look what USC does to the verse, in three translations:
YUSUFALI: And voluptuous women of equal age;
PICKTHAL: And voluptuous women of equal age;
SHAKIR: And voluptuous women of equal age;
Which should read to be faithful to the originals:
YUSUFALI: Companions of equal age
PICKTHAL: And maidens for companions
SHAKIR: And those showing freshness of youth, equals in age
When the verse literally renders more like:
And damsels with swelling breasts, of equal age
The USC "Compendium" is actually closer to the original Arabic than the three authors, but to cover up one misrepresentation with another is quite something.
What a lot of rot, how does this man and other clerics know what Mohammad meant when he said that men are to beat their women when they don't obey.
The quran doest say to beat them lightly, or not over the face etc, it says to beat them... finish.. beating is beating, it hurts and is wrong for a man to beat a woman..
These men are taking the position that they know more than their wives, and that they must have their wives under control, hmmm is she an animal that they think she has to be kept under control...
I heard a cleric the other day tell his men that they were to use a hanky and use that across the face, or a bit of material when his wife was naughty.. well if the wife is naught what does using a piece of material across the face do,, nothing...
The Quran says to beat your wife...
So that's why they wear hefty bags - to cover all the bruises. The "cleric" advises the young men not to hit women in the face or on the hands, the only body parts showing. Co-incidence? I don't think so.
One of the most disturbing remarks is this - He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child - slapping them right and left. He equates children with camels and donkeys. But then, camels and donkeys are more valuable than children. After all, you can always beat your wife into agreeing to have another baby.
Concerned Citizen, I am mystified by the dissection of 78:33. Wouldn't several versions of 4:34 served us better? Nevertheless, I simply omitted the parentheses due to error. All I wanted to do was state that the Ali translation would be a better source than the one included in the article. Scourge is a rather obscure word to use for whipping and can be used by apologists to refute the assertion that Islam allows and even encourages wife beating.
"What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?
Posted by: Ralph127"
...New York....
Pelayo,
No offense intended, your points remain intact.
The dissection of 78:33 was incidental to dissection of Yusuf Ali. Our Arabic "Dr. Phil" seems to want to utilize the tafsir supporting a Yusuf Ali "type" interpretation of 4:34 (personally, I believe that since the common folk in Middle East countries don't as often have televisions as we do, that "Phil's" television drama is intended as propaganda for us and "enlightened" Europeans). The point for me is that "lightly" is not really in the Qur'an, the simple reading of that and related texts does not require its inference, but rather quite the contrary.
78:33 came up while reviewing Yusuf Ali's translation as an example of his sanitization of the Qur'an. I came upon the USC peculiarity in the process, and was startled by it, as I have often relied upon, quoted and recommended their site. Just thought I would pass that caution on to others.
From http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html
4:34 SHAKIR: 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.
I added the bold font to "beat." When confronted by apologists about wife beating, I would use this "interpretation."
When I was a child and deserved to be punished, I got a whuppin' or a whoopin' never did I get a scourgin'.
An exposition on the Arabic word daraba.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm
(Nearly "scourge" free except for Pickthall and Rodwell, for those opposed to such)
Sura 8:12 uses the verb 'to strike' (Daraba) two times: 'strike above their necks' and 'strike their fingertips.'
I'm sure it meant "lightly".
Concerned, That link was a very helpful. I am puzzled by this: "He notes in parenthesis, not original to the Arabic, the sequence of steps and the implied soft meaning of 'beat them (lightly)'"
Did Yusuf Ali add this based on some sspecial knowledge? What basis did he have to add "lightly."
I refer you to my earlier comment on this blog entry.
"Check out how gentle the toothpick used for beating is. This shows you that the purpose is not to inflict pain."
Good to hear the voice of moderate, reforming Islam.
Pelayo,
Modern debates over 4:34 inevitably hark back to a still widely used 1930 translation of the Koran by British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, who determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can "scourge" their wives. A 1934 translation of the Koran, by Indian Muslim scholar A. Yusuf Ali, inserted a parenthetical qualifier: Men could "Beat them (lightly)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001261_pf.html
Preface to First Edition, Lahore 4th April, 1934
"Gentle and discerning reader! what I wish to present to you is an English Interpretation, side by side with the Arabic Text. The English shall be, not a mere substitution of one word for another, but the best expression I can give to the fullest meaning which I can understand from the Arabic Text."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Ali
My edition of Yusuf Ali is an Amana 2001 reprint of the "10th edition". Other publishers have their own editions, with documented and undocumented "revisions" of Yusuf Ali's original text. This applies to the commentary notes as well. The footnotes in my "Amana" Ali demonstrate an appeal to Imam Shafii and states "all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty". There is no disclosure of alteration of this footnote.
I believe that this definition of cruelty does not exclude humiliation, subjugation and intimidation, but does include the potential for significant physical trauma. Obviously, you could use a hankerchief, wet noodle, or perhaps even even their "gentle" toothpick just about anywhere, without leaving marks. Aisha complained the believing women's skin was greener than their clothes!
The use of a word with the same etymology as one used to command decaptitations and amputations makes the use of the word lightly "necessary" to dissuade a "misinterpretation" leading to a perceived sanction for disfigurement and death! Or at least to discourage the infidel recognition of such.
It was good to see Fox News taking an interest on this story that. It has been disgussed at least twice today (saturday). But what is always amazing is the response from the Fox news folks who are discussing this. They simply have no clue as to what goes on in the fundamental Islamic world when it comes to the treatment of women.
In a Fox news discussion this afternoon 14:35 hrs.PST, a short discussion group were genuinely surprised at what this cleric was teaching these three male Muslims.
It just goes to show time and time again how little the talking heads of the media never bother to take a little time to understand just a few of the teachings of the Qu'ran on how women are to be treated by their husbands.
If you want answers as to why this cleric is teaching this, then for gods sakes call in the experts such as Robert Spencer if you really want some understanding about the Islamic world,but above all take a little time and open up the Quran and learn for yourself.
Wake up and quit being surprised by what you keep finding out-- It is not 9-11-01 anymore and you should be somewhat knowledgable about this serious and very contemporary subject that will continue to effect all our lives for years to come.
"Saudi Marriage EXPERT"....now there's an oxymoron.
I would love to see this guy thrown in the octagon with a real MMA fighter so he can be be shown what a beating really is.
I-slam is not spread by the sword...I-slam IS the sword.
Good points, Concerned Citizen: Any translation/interpretation of the text still does not exclude "humiliation, subjugation, or intimidation." In fact, it is this result of Qur'an-sanctioned beatings/chastisements/humiliations that the present Saudi "expert" implies is the real (and to him, beneficial) consequence here, the level of physical violence involved aside.