| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Many times, when speaking of the nature of Sharia and the rights of women and non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, I have in reference to women quoted 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."
And often, when I have quoted this verse, I have been charged with "cherry-picking" unpleasant verses from the Qur'an, and told that no Muslim takes this verse literally in the modern age. I wish that were so, but here is more evidence that it isn't.
"Iran: Men Can Hit Their Wives, Cleric Says," from AKI, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
Tehran, 26 Oct. (AKI) - Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious edict - saying it is legitimate for men to hit their disobedient wives. Shirazi, one of the leading clerics of the Shiite holy city of Qom, wrote on his website that "the Koran first of all advises a man to try and convince his wife to obey to him in a polite way and through advice, then by refusing to have sexual relations with her and, finally, if all this will have failed to make her reason, with physical punishment."The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."
Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."
Posted by Robert at October 27, 2006 7:12 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."
I issue a counter fatwa-ALL Iranian women must beat their men for merely being Muslim. The harder the beating, the better. Any woman killed carrying out this fatwa will receive 72 good looking guys in paradise, one that is 100 percent Allah free (how else could it be paradise?.
Qom-the city from which all of the worst Islamania spews forth. If the US attacks Iran this holiest of cities should be flattened totally-skip Tehran.
By the way, how DOES one beat their wife lightly?
Only an ayatollah could come up with such an idea.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 27, 2006 8:05 AM
Maybe a "light" beating is one that doesn't draw blood.
Only a complete idiot can come up with the idea of a "light beating"!
Posted by: clipper at October 27, 2006 8:08 AM
According to Al-Kasani, the conjunction “and” in the revelation requires a sequence of actions: first admonishing the wife, then deserting her bed, and finally “hitting” her)
However, Al-Hinati argues that the sequential interpretation is only one of three possible ones.
Reportedly, the majority of scholars take the sequential approach .
http://www.karamah.org/docs/DomViolfinal.pdf
at October 27, 2006 8:12 AM
Slightly OT, can anyone help identify this quote from Aussie mufti saying uncovered women deserve to be raped about which Robert also reported:
But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.”
I reckon that al-Rafee must be al-Rafi'i or al-Razi, big time Muslim physician/commentator on the Koran?
Al-Hilali, who spouted that bile is Egyptian born, trained, and I think Hanafi school of jurisprudence.
at October 27, 2006 8:29 AM
I'll tell you what this sadistic moron needs. A good old fasioned a$$ wupin by a 260 pound line backer.
Posted by: mustang65 at October 27, 2006 8:45 AM
This is the first time that I see, in the holy book of a monotheistic religion, a social and psychological problem being handled by the Qur'an.'
We all know that some men are afflicted with a mental illness known as 'sadism' and some women are also afflicted with a mental illness known as 'masochism.'
What is the treatment for these mental illnesses?
Beatings! He must treat her harshly! This verse is for the benefit those afflicted with this mental illness. Therefore, a wife married to a husband afflicted by this illness, let's say sadism – well, let him beat her because the beatings, for him, are a cure."
at October 27, 2006 8:47 AM
I have thought long and hard about the ethical dilemma with islam and the ominous possibility that in the event of total war, eventually we may have to aim at all Muslims or aim at all copies of the Koran.
This may have a slightly less bloody(still bloody mind you) simple solution: behead the mosques!!
So, I would like to profer an edict:
someone, anyone start to rid the world of ALL Islamic religious leaders (I do mean ALL of them plus quite a few(if not all) of their madrassa teachers).
As a reward if you are successful but die: you will get 272 houris( or sheboys if you are gay), an infinite supply of white raisins and the unbridled appreciation of every God(and probably including Allah as I fail to see any god being that interested in 6yo girls so perhaps he also is quite annoyed with Muhammad) and all of those itchy spots just out of reached delicately scratched for eternity.
If you survive. we will give you our unbridled thanks plus a confirmed(by the AB of Cant, Pope, Dalai Lama etc) ticket for heaven and a nice little seaside villa anywhere you chose(c/o GWB White house washington).
Any takers out there?
Posted by: MisIslamist at October 27, 2006 9:02 AM
If (heaven forbid) I were a muslim woman, I would be sure to disbey my husband, just enough to ensure he would banish me to another bed and refuse to have sex with me. The very idea of having one of those filthy, smelly perverts touching me makes me ill.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at October 27, 2006 9:07 AM
"An important Qur’anic precedent on the issue of domestic violence is found in the story of Job [Ayyub]. When Job was being tested, his wife lost her faith and blasphemed. As a result, he took an oath to hit her as punishment. A dilemma was thus created: a prophet should not engage in violent and unworthy behavior towards his wife. On the other hand, a prophet may not violate his oath. The divine solution to this dilemma is expressed in a Qur’anic verse [38:44]. It instructs Job to satisfy his oath to hit his wife by 'hitting' her with a handful of fragrant grass (or basil) [a flagrant whitewash of the text, see below]. The intent was to satisfy the promise without harming the wife. In this way, Prophet Job resolved his dilemma."
http://www.karamah.org/docs/DomViolfinal.pdf
Surah Saad (38) Ayah 44 And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent in returning (to Allah).
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 27, 2006 9:16 AM
Why not just the Ralph-Kramden stage-threat: "To the moon, Alice!" And leave it at that.
Posted by: Hugh at October 27, 2006 10:01 AM
By their fruits and the things they say, ye shall know them.
Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at October 27, 2006 10:23 AM
Well I'll be damned, ain't that a nice fatwa?
Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 27, 2006 10:30 AM
"Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal.""
Golly, these mahometan 'clerics' know just about everything! This aspect of the female psyche was never divulged by my psychology professor. Why can't the rest of us be so smart?
Posted by: Infidel33 at October 27, 2006 10:58 AM
Will someone kindly beat some sense into these ayatollahs already.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 27, 2006 11:05 AM
i would like to see Makarem Shirazi try to beet my wife i am 6'7 400 lbs and lynn is 5'3 120lbs and since i have to sleep i would not try this iranian nutcases advice its too dangerous ,it might wprk on his wife/slave beause thathe probibly gets away with it in iran because of all the religous cops that would flog her if she rebelded he needs to do time in attica prison for agrevated assult
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 27, 2006 11:45 AM
do you remember that a woman coverted to islam from USA used to post here (not naseem) who tried to see positive sides on polygamy and the dhimmi status.
I wonder why she's not commenting on this brilliant piece.
Posted by: StillFedUp at October 27, 2006 11:53 AM
do you remember that a woman coverted to islam from USA used to post here (not naseem) who tried to see positive sides on polygamy and the dhimmi status.
I wonder why she's not commenting on this brilliant piece.
Posted by: StillFedUp at October 27, 2006 11:53 AM
She might be pondering her stupidity from a hospital bed after HER husband took this wonderful advice.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 27, 2006 12:44 PM
The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."
Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."
There is nothing in the Qur'an 4:34 about mitigating the "scourge" or the "beat". The advice of Shirazi about beating the woman without leaving "signs and wounds" (also echoed in a tafsir by the Sunni Muslim al-Kurtubi) reminds one of those old gangster movies where the police interrogators would make sure to beat the suspect they had in custody in such a way so as not to leave marked bruises by which the lawyers could prove they had intimidated them.
at October 27, 2006 5:08 PM
Like I have said before, you shouldn't "mess" with the one who prepares your food.
I'm sure these women could find some interesting mushrooms.
at October 27, 2006 7:39 PM
"Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."
"
I'm not tu quoque-ing here, but have you ever noticed that this is exactly what is shown in many French films? Wife and husband argue, man slaps woman across face, and suddenly all is well.
Maybe that explains the French understanding of islamism...
Posted by: Lili at October 28, 2006 2:05 AM
As a woman, I agree with one slap and he should never go to sleep again without wondering when the iron skillet will come out. That being said the "rule of thumb comes from English common law. "Never beat your wife with a stick thicker than your thumb." In the US around 1890s a father or husband was legally able to put his wife or daughters in a mental hospital and have their genitals mutilated for disobedience.
In the west we now have laws protecting females. The problem with Islam is the religion has not evolved as have most of Christianity and Judaism. As no one gives up power voluntarily, IMO, if we really want to win this war against terror the UN (don't laugh to hard) must make a world-wide mandate against spousal abuse and lack of female education. This should be coupled with severe and maditory punishment for anyone found guilt of this crime. So many Muslim men would be in jail there wouldn't be enough left to go on jihad.
Posted by: eneri at October 28, 2006 11:52 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)