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

[The Shaman]

Apparently, some Muslim scholars have become concerned for domestic violence. In Egypt alone, it accounts for over 30% of the deaths of all women - and possibly it is higher elsewhere. Their solution, however, is a rather, I would say, laissez-faire one: to state that according to all respected sources, a wife has the full right to strike back. Here is the article itself:


CAIRO (AFP) - Sunni Islam's highest authority has approved a woman's right to fight back if her husband uses violence against her, Egypt's Al-Masry al-Youm newspaper reported on Monday.

The declaration by Sheikh Abdel Hamid al-Atrash, who heads Al-Azhar University's committee for fatwas or religious rulings, comes after similar rulings by religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

"A wife has the legitimate right to hit her husband in order to defend herself," Atrash was quoted as saying.

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether they are a man or a woman... because all human beings are equal before God," he said.

Over the last few days, Saudi Sheikh Abdel Mohsen al-Abyakan stressed the fact that a wife should resort to "the same kind of violence" as her husband used against her, whether it be with a leather strap or a wire cable, the paper said.

Prominent Turkish Muslim preacher and writer Fethullah Gulen went one step further and ruled that a woman should return the violence with interest.

"She should give back two blows for each one received," the paper quoted him as saying.

[Splunge]

Is it actually legal for a man to beat his wife in Islamic countries? I did a quick check, and couldn't find a definitive answer.

Legal or not, I suspect it's condoned, and so this would likely make things worse, since the husband wouldn't likely take to kindly to the wife's attacks, and would retaliate with even more severe beatings. I'm not saying she shouldn't fight back, but if they want to do something about domestic violence, this isn't the right way to go about it.

[Montresor]

Seeing that men are on average a good deal stronger than women, giving both parties the right to beat each other will generally favour the man. A better position would be to say that nobody has the right to use violence, except in self-defence. Even against spouses.

[The Shaman]

@ Splunge: I'm not sure myself. I suspect that in countries that try to appear more "egalitarian" it is outlawed, and in searching for the source article (I found this on a bulgarian internet outlet) I came upon some forums that discussed this; some posts indicated that it is, in fact, punishable by the law. However, as you can guess, in many cases it is overlooked or even unreported. Heck, domestic violence often goes under the radar in Western Europe and the US - chances are it is much more often hidden in middle Eastern societies.

@ Monty: I agree, though to play the devil's advocate here - even if sheikh so-and so says it, how likely is it to be followed? It would involve a big change in people's mentality (not to say the mentality of the local clergy, who will most likely spread and interpret the words of the higher-ups to the average Ahmad on the street), and it's not likely that this would happen quickly. In a way, "you have no right to beat your wife" may be harder to understand than "you have no more right to beat your wife than she has to beat you."

What struck me as curious, and was not included in this article, is that another Islamic theologian from Saudi Arabia has taken such a position before, and has in fact advised that wives should try to use the same weapon they were attacked with. That struck me as, well, weird. If this is symbolic, I'm not sure I understand it.

[Kitrax]

because all human beings are equal before God," he said.

Yeah...bulls***!!! I *highly* doubt they believe that. If they do, then they're all a bunch of hypocrites.

[The Shaman]

Well, it would stretch the idea of equality quite a bit, wouldn't it? Then again, abstract terms such as equality can be interpreted in some fairly weird ways. Look at how Christianity - which, imo, does preach a measure of equality among people - was used to support very unequal societies during the Middle Ages.

[The Great Snook]

News from Somalia. At least they apologized at the end.

A woman of 23 accused of adultery has been stoned to death by Somali Islamists.

She was placed in a hole up to her neck for the execution in front of hundreds of people in the port of Kismayu, which Islamist insurgents captured in August. When a relative and others surged forward, guards opened fire, killing a child.

Stones were hurled at her head, and she was brought out of the hole three times to see if she had died.

'A woman in green veil and black mask was brought in a car as we waited to watch the merciless act of stoning,' one local resident, Abdullahi Aden, told Reuters.

'We were told she submitted herself to be punished, yet we could see her screaming as she was forcefully bound, legs and hands. A relative of hers ran towards her, but the Islamists opened fire and killed a child.'

The Islamists last carried out public executions when they ruled Mogadishu and most of south Somalia for half of 2006.

Allied Ethiopian and Somali government forces toppled them at the end of that year, but they have waged an Iraq-style guerrilla campaign since then, gradually taking territory back.

As when they ruled Mogadishu in 2006, the Islamists now controlling the Kismayu area are again providing much-needed security, but also imposing fundamentalist practices such as banning entertainment seen as anti-Islamic.

Relatives of the woman executed in Kismayu, whom they named as Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow, were furious.
'The stoning was totally irreligious and illogical,' said her sister, who asked not to be named. 'Islam does not execute a woman for adultery unless four witnesses and the man with whom she committed sex are brought forward publicly.'

Islamist leaders at the execution said the woman had breached Islamic law. They promised to punish the guard who had shot the child in the melee around the execution.

'We apologise for killing the child. And we promise we shall bring the one who opened fire before the courts and deal with him accordingly,' one unnamed Islamist leader told the crowd

[LKD]

It's been said before but I'll say it again -- we cannot judge Islam by the actions of its most extreme and fanatical people. We could just as well judge all socialists by the genocides of Stalin, or all Christians by the bombings of the IRA. That said, though, . . . .

The fact that even moderate Muslims often defend such extremism -- or at least do not speak out against it -- damns them in Western eyes. The fact that even here they run the risk of becoming victims themselves is lost on some Westerners, but still, the responsibility to speak up is there, IMHO. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard moderate Muslims state that their religion has been hijacked by extremists on the radio here in Canada -- yet they seem to be lone voices crying in the wilderness, not joined by the majority of their moderate brethren.

[Ragusa]

Laissez faire would be a perfect solution, wouldn't it be for the fact that men biologically are physically superior to woman (an assumption unassailable by counter-evidence). Luckily, the NRA has offered a practical solution for that dilemma and is lobbying hard to see it adopted as official US foreign policy towards the Muslim world: More guns, and especially more guns for Muslim woman - this gun in particular. Rumour has it they have Sarah Palin on board. A woman armed with a gun can obviously defend herself against a man armed with a leather belt or an electric cable - and thoroughly solve the problem of domestic violence. Which is utterly brilliant an approach to liberate Muslim woman. After all it was arming woman that brought forth emancipation in the West.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by LKD

I can't tell you the number of times I have heard moderate Muslims state that their religion has been hijacked by extremists on the radio here in Canada -- yet they seem to be lone voices crying in the wilderness, not joined by the majority of their moderate brethren.

Why on earth do you believe that American or Canadian muslims have anything whatsoever to answer for when a few Arab Muslims launch a terror attack? They didn't commit any acts of terror. Here are the first 2 large moderate Muslim groups I found in a Google search. There are more, but it should be enough to convince a reasonable person that moderate Islam is alive and well in the western world. Muslims shouldn't have to prove to you that they don't support terrorism.

American Islamic Congress
Free Muslims Coalition

How many Muslims have you met? We don't make Muslims wear yellow stars, most western Muslims don't wear any identifying clothing, and Muslims don't usually advertise their faith because some people believe they support terror until they've somehow proven otherwise, so you've probably met more Muslims than you think. How many Muslim terrorists have you met?

[Deathmage]

I'm completely sick and tired of the Western media whining about Muslims being jackasses when it's just a few isolated incidents. How many people get killed/beaten to death in the West every day? How many freaks exist?

Anyways. Allowing a woman to fight back would, I feel, only provoke more violence. It would indeed be better to just make domestic violence illegal.

[Ragusa]

Originally Posted by Deathmage

I'm completely sick and tired of the Western media whining about Muslims being jackasses when it's just a few isolated incidents. How many people get killed/beaten to death in the West every day? How many freaks exist?

Anyways. Allowing a woman to fight back would, I feel, only provoke more violence. It would indeed be better to just make domestic violence illegal.

Like: Doh!

[martaug]

Cant do that as under sharia law the husband is allowed to beat his wife for certain offenses.

Also, just in case you didn't know, sharia law allows for child rape as the age of consent under it is 9 years old.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/me...ide/index.html
This girl of under 10 had to pay her husband $200 for asking for the divorce even though he(as far as most right thinking people are concerned) raped her. He did nothing wrong under sharia law & will not be prosecuted for any crimes.
He actually had the cohones to say "Yes I was intimate with her, but I have done nothing wrong, as she is my wife and I have the right and no one can stop me.”

Now thats just sick.
If there was ever someone that needed to be skinned alive an inch at a time, it's him.

[The Shaman]

IMO he's obviously a jackass, and quite likely a pervert - come on, man, a girl at that age... how can you be sexually attracted to her? However, I'd be equally usually more furious with the girl's parents. She's their daughter, for Pete's sake, and they better than anyone else should know just how young she is. What are they thinking, marrying her at that age?

[joacqin]

I do not understand why this is called a muslim issue. It is a religious and conservative issue. Wherever religion and conservatism gets free reign things go bad. Christian arabs are in my experience indistinguishable from muslim arabs when it comes to those values we in the west find so abhorrent. Attack islam to your hearts content, it deserves it but any attack on islam is an attack on all religion.

[Deathmage]

This site here says the age of consent is 15; younger if the court permitted it. So I don't know how the court permitted this event, nor why the parents dumped her off like that (political marriage?).
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/#4

The question people need to ask themselves in regards to Muslim problems on the news is this: if the event was done by white people in a Western society, would people say "Damn Christians", "Damn whities", or "Damn lunatics" ?

You could argue that Islamic worlds are more influenced by religion. Maybe it is (not that the West was not influenced by Christianity). But it is stupid to ignore the fact that there are people in this world that are simply STARK RAVING MAD regardless of nationality or religion.

[NOG (No Other Gods)]

Deathmage, the shear number of 'honor killings' committed in the US that have made the news recently (breaking through election coverage) indicates that this isn't just the Middle Eastern variety. As much as they may like to look modern and egalitarian, many American Muslims have still no completely severed their ethical links to extremist Islam.

Joacquin, the only things I know about Arab Christians come from missionaries to the region, so it's understandably a rather select view of the crowd. Could you support this statement? Do Christian Muslims beat their wives? Do they force young children into marriages? Do they publicly execute people?

[Drew]

Originally Posted by martaug

Cant do that as under sharia law the husband is allowed to beat his wife for certain offenses.

This is true, but just as Christians have let the more hideous aspects of their faiths fall by the wayside, a great many Muslims have left such distasteful articles of faith behind.

Also, just in case you didn't know, sharia law allows for child rape as the age of consent under it is 9 years old.

This isn't true. This actually comes from a fatwa issued by a Wahabi Imam that 9 years old is enough because Mohammad himself took a 9 year old as a wife. While a few Islamic nations (Yemen, where the travesty you mentioned occurred, and Saudi Arabia) allow this, the lowest the age of consent goes in the middle east is 13, and 15 is actually more common. While your argument [that Sharia law sets the age of consent at 9) is true of Saudi and Yemeni Sharia law, it is not true of any other nation employing Islamic law. The age of consent in Iran, for example, is 15.

Originally Posted by Deathmage

This site here says the age of consent is 15; younger if the court permitted it. So I don't know how the court permitted this event....

Yemen used to set the age of consent at 15, but conservatives abolished their age of consent in 1999.

[T2Bruno]

... in the 70's a husband was allowed to beat his wife in the US. The real turning point was when a husband beat his wife to death in front of several police -- who were not even reprimanded because "she never asked for help." Is it so surprising this is a problem in other countries? Progress takes time.

In many cultures wives and children are much like property. A wife who strikes back will be more severely punished by the husband -- he will be "bound by honor" to put her in her place (the Egyptian Sheikh knows this as well). So unless the woman is a black belt fighting back is really not an option. But stating she can fight back is a step in the right direction to giving women more rights.

Along similar lines, spousal rape was not considered a crime in any state until 1975. In nearly two-thirds of the US it is still considered a lesser crime than rape committed against a non-spouse. Most of the Middle East, Africa, Orient and South America do not consider spousal rape a crime. Of course this man does not believe he did anything wrong -- because in his culture and in his country he did not violate any law. Again, progress takes time.

[Ragusa]

T2,
reality based moral relativists with historical consciousness like you stand in the way of Liberty © and Freedom™

[T2Bruno]

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

[joacqin]

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.

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by NOG (No Other Gods)

Deathmage, the shear number of 'honor killings' committed in the US that have made the news recently (breaking through election coverage) indicates that this isn't just the Middle Eastern variety. As much as they may like to look modern and egalitarian, many American Muslims have still no completely severed their ethical links to extremist Islam.

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.

[Gnarfflinger]

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!

[Shoshino]

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