If he had only stopped at beating her, all would be well. One imam explains it thusly: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]. It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard."
"Saudi is beheaded for beating his Yemeni wife to death," from M&C, October 22:
Riyadh - A Saudi national was beheaded Wednesday after being found guilty of beating his Yemeni wife to death with a stick, an interior ministry satetment said.It said the killing happened in the southern Jizan region. A Saudi national had already been executed Tuesday in Jeddah for killing his wife during an argument.
The latest executions bring to 78 the number carried out this year in the kingdom, where Islamic sharia law pertains.
I'm keenly interested to discover what's causing the Saudis' sudden change of heart about the disposable cattle-status of females.
Was the Yemeni woman connected in some way to an important tribe or official? How about the Jeddah victim? Were the perpetrators personae non grata in some way with the shiekhs and petty princes? Did the beatings cause too much noise and fuss and mess, disturbing the neighbors' usual passive enjoyment of Islamic justice? (Do the neighbor's helpless screams make one's wife more obedient?) Were there infidel observers around that would spill the beans?
There's another whole story in here.
What does Mr. "Human Rights" have to say:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040527&slug=amnesty27
You guessed it.. NOTHING, if he is not hiding under the table, lest he and his family, you know.. feel the 'sword of allah'!
So much for Dr. Human Rights!
Robert can eat two Shultz for breakfast. LOL...
I guess that's what Abdullah Yusuf Ali meant by adding the qualifier 'lightly' to 4:34: it simply meant 'Don't kill them'.
"where Islamic sharia law pertains."
Pertains?
Also, it's nice how the Sharia-compliant dress code could hide bruises or other injuries. Surely that's a sign of divine inspiration.
The part on instructing you how to beat your wife properly under islamic law. Yes, those saggy, baggy clothes would be an excellent choice for hiding those accidental hits that might show up.
Disgusting, totally disgusting and to be expected when sharia law is the rule of the land. This what we hear about. Imagine what goes on against women and children THAT we never hear about.
That prohibition against leaving bruises, scars, or marks is such crap, especially in Saudi Arabia. As if any marks left could be used as evidence or anything. And nowhere dies it say that in Islamic scripture. It just says not to beat a woman about the head, unless she's a (non-Muslim) slave, in which case go for it. In Saudi Arabia women can't even be examined at the doctor. He only crosses the line when he killed her. Monsters.
The south Sudanese (non-Muslims) hit their wives too. I was told that they should not hit them around their heads or faces, where the evidence might be seen by neighbours or relatives.
And the wives are likely to be hit if the husbands think they are using contraceptives. Don't think it is only Moslems...
The south Sudanese (non-Muslims) hit their wives too. I was told that they should not hit them around their heads or faces, where the evidence might be seen by neighbours or relatives.
And the wives are likely to be hit if the husbands think they are using contraceptives. Don't think it is only Moslems...
Posted by: PG at October 23, 2008 6:28 AM
PG - The issue is not just wife beating. It is the fact that wife beating is legal and justified in the Qur'an. No other religious text gives permission to beat wives. Under Sharia "Law", a women's testimony is counted as half that of a man's. So in order to bring charges of "excessive" force being used against her, a Muslim women must have another witness to the assault (preferably a male).
Meanwhile, in the US, Christianity and the Bible are accused of mistreating women as second class citizens...
An aberration, that's all. Maybe they got Mohammed Abu Ali, the wife beater, confused with Mohammed Abu Ali, the Christian convert mixed up.
Clerical errors happen.
Like the one in my last post. "confused", "mixed up" take your pick, and excuse my short attention span ;-)
Tanstaafi, you are right. And it would be interesting to know if wife-beating in the Sudan was picked up from the Moslems, who have influenced them in many ways and have forced them to study the Koran in the past, and in many instances (such as higher education) in the present.