Egyptian Cleric: Rules for "gentle" wife-beating and 90% of British women desire a "strong man".

This issue of wife-beating, like corporal punishment for children and animals, is becoming increasingly unacceptable and emotive in Western countries.
Therefore I must firstly say that I regard any wife-beating as abusive and unacceptable.
However, we do have politically correct multi-multiculturalism in the Western culture, which claims all cultures and customs are equal, and we have no right to judge the legalities of another culture.

Wife beating was common in Christian cultures, and even in high or "decent" middle class society it was considered a private matter, and this was widely accepted and ignored by the churches and law well into the 1980s.
I recall that only a century ago the colonial laws allowed "reasonable" beatings, and beatings with a rod no thicker than the man's thumb.

It has grown to be increasingly unpopular and socially unacceptable.
Of course that doesn't stop real abuse from going on, but abusers can no longer look to religious or legal support, and women are increasingly empowered to stop it.
That means: no Western abuser can honestly say he is beating a woman because his religion and culture tells him to do so.
The male abusers are also increasingly stigmatized and cast out from society.
Christianity increasingly shies away from its sexist verses, and ignores the history of "ducking stools" and other means that once silenced verbose females according to scripture.

However, Islamists openly admit beating a woman is "hononoring her", after the failure of verbal admonishment.
Would the multiculturalists and "tolerant" people say we should allow special laws to allow for such "gentle" beatings?
To be consistent, I guess they should?
It is clearly instructed in streams of Islamic culture:

Someone should beat the # out of this guy to discipline his ass. See if he likes being "honored"

Christian culture of wife beating? ooooooooookay.

Maybe you can dig up some random Old Testament stuff but really... wow.

OMG !

I'm not a feminist, but by golly gosh, this is wholeheartedly unacceptable. Is it ok for a woman to do the same to her husband, when he decides he is too tired to "put out?"
I bet its not.

Oh and 90% of the UK want a stronger man one who doesn't cry ?! I'm the first to admit sometimes you can feel a little uncormfortable seeing a man cry, due to previous stereotype indoctrination.

But.... I would rather have a man who cried, than a man who beat me, in fact due to my childhood, any man even lifts his little finger in my direction, I'm gone !

Peace

reply to post by jjkenobi

You never heard of this?
It may seem surprising today, but Islam was once considered empowering for women compared to Christianity.
Christian women could not inherit, could not divorce and faced state-sanctioned torture if their husband accused them of talking too much.
Of course such customs varied regionally, and after the reformation according to the sect, but they were pretty similar.

For the "taming of the European/British shrews": The Scold's Bridle, especially horrid with a razor wheel over the tongue: en.wikipedia.org...'s_bridle

Many of the tribal cultures so idolized today had no problem beating women to death, exchanging them in trade for goods, prostituting them, or mutilating them for real or imagined infractions.
Just like the Priest's concubine in the Biblical chapter of Judges, they were little more than beasts of burden and pleasure.
In South Africa it is a big issue, with some men claiming wife beating is their African custom and not forbidden by scriptures.
Nevertheless, all that being said, only one one current religion teaches it as doctrine, although certainly not all Muslim men beat their wives in our society.
I say all these historical things for context, because it would be unfair to only single out Muslims.

All cultures are NOT equal. It is childish to assume otherwise. This guy, for example, represents a cultural mindset that has no place in the west, and anyone of that culture who desires to live amongst us, must adapt to our ways, or face our justice.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The proper response to Islamic fundamentalism and any other brand of fundamentalism is more rock n roll and more strip clubs, preferably served with BBQ.

My mum used to say that everybody has to sleep and that a good sharp kitchen knife evens the odds. Anybody like to have a go at honouring her?

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
All cultures are NOT equal. It is childish to assume otherwise. This guy, for example, represents a cultural mindset that has no place in the west, and anyone of that culture who desires to live amongst us, must adapt to our ways, or face our justice.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The proper response to Islamic fundamentalism and any other brand of fundamentalism is more rock n roll and more strip clubs, preferably served with BBQ.

I think the proper response to Islamic fundamentalist wife beating is to say: have whatever culture you want, but if you harm somebody else over your beliefs against their will, expect to get punished and have pay restitution to your victims.

However, I think a wife who writes down in a marriage contract that she is willing to get beaten up at the discretion of "her man" then the guy beating her should not be punished unless she renounces that portion of the contract on the record, and only then any FURTHER beatings should be punished. Not that I can imagine any woman signing such a contract, but a woman's body is her own choice about what she wishes to do with it (so long as she isn't harming another person against their will). Would you agree or disagree with that? If you disagree with this idea then I'm wondering whether you believe a boxing match should be legal, and where you draw the line in disallowing people to put their own body in danger.

reply to post by civilchallenger

I'd say, if a domestic boxing match is your thing, go gay and pick on somebody your own size.

I don't think women can make a contract like that, because "gentle beatings" may sound wonderful, but the reality is different.

Furthermore, a boxing match dictates you may hit back and there are rules and judges for fairness.

I would assume that a woman who harms and resists her spousal abuser faces an even harder legal sanction.

Bullying people in a system where they cannot speak their true mind means they are at the mercy of somebody else, which diminishes, rather than increases their rights over their own body.

reply to post by civilchallenger


No, I love boxing. Hell -- I love a good fistfight for that matter.

My only reservation with your suggestion is the level of coercion going into the marriage. How "aware" exactly is the woman of her rights as a human being to enter into such a contract willingly and without censure, culturally, politically or religiously?

The problem is that women in cultures where men might DESIRE such an arrangement have 5000+ years of superstition and cultural indoctrination working against their better interest. On a level playing field, such as might theoretically exist between two educated people in an S&M dungeon + safe words? Sure.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s

And ironically, men who are abused by women in Western culture have the opposite problem.
They may be laughed at and ignored, because although the favor of the law and society has swung towards the "female as victim", the image of the "powerful male" remains unchanged.
Yet, a man may not hit back, not under any circumstance, even if the woman is built like a tank and he is a waif.
It's not a widespread problem (more so in same-sex relationships), but it does exist, and some Western women abuse their new social power.
That is also wrong.

Much of this power is also economical, rather than just physical.
Abused people often stick around because they are not economically empowered to leave.
Mainly that is still a gender issue favoring the man in most cultures, but the tables may be turned in some Western settings where affirmative action has empowerd women to the disempowerment of men.

reply to post by halfoldman


Christian culture has the capability to evolve.

Islam does not evolve. Muhammad is still considered the most perfect man. That's why it's still OK to marry children in that culture. To outlaw that would mean that Muhammad was not perfect.

This is why they need to write laws in modern, first world nations to stop this barbaric practice. Laws like banning the burqa and the hijab help to end the objectification and domination of women within the Islamic community.

There is no reason to tolerate attitudes towards women like this in our modern times.

I wouldn't doubt that 90% of English women want a strong man.

I doubt that beating your wife would qualify you as strong...in fact I would say that it qualifies you as weak!

To be strong, is to have strength of character. To be honourable, to be caring, to know when to stand your ground. Nothing in there about beating up others.

Originally posted by poet1b
This is why they need to write laws in modern, first world nations to stop this barbaric practice.

I'm pretty sure that domestic abuse is illegal in most first world countries already.

Originally posted by poet1b
Laws like banning the burqa and the hijab help to end the objectification and domination of women within the Islamic community.

There is no reason to tolerate attitudes towards women like this in our modern times.

The ''modern times'' where women - in many Western countries - are required by law to cover up their breasts in public ?

I'm sure that that could validly be interpreted as the ''objectification and domination of women'' in the West.

Different cultures have unusual and seemingly illogical norms and codes, but as long as people are not unreasonably breaking the laws of the land, then monoculturalists are just going to have to deal with it.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

The ''modern times'' where women - in many Western countries - are required by law to cover up their breasts in public ?

I'm sure that that could validly be interpreted as the ''objectification and domination of women'' in the West.

Yeah, sure, compared to forcing a woman to always have her head covered in public is comparative to a women being required to cover a minimum amount of her breasts in public. Sure!

Different cultures have unusual and seemingly illogical norms and codes, but as long as people are not unreasonably breaking the laws of the land, then monoculturalists are just going to have to deal with it.

If being a monoculturalist means being against a culture that supports wife beating, I guess that makes me a monoculturalist. That would make most of the people who embrace most of the cultures on this planet monculturalists, while the most intolerant of cultures would be viewed as multicultural. Yeah, that makes sense.

There is a hugh difference between Christianity and Islam when it comes to how a husband is suppose to treat his wife. And anyone who wants to differ on that can differ by themselves. Jesus Christ said it as plain as day,
Ephesians 5:25 (Amplified Bible)
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Colossians 3:19 (Amplified Bible)
19 Husbands, love your wives [be affectionate and sympathetic with them] and do not be harsh or bitter or resentful toward them.

Christ told men to be willing to die for their wife.
It can't get no plainer than that.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Good point, but I'm not so sure I agree with it all.
Here, if you go topless as a man and a cop sees you (unless it's close to the beach or on your property) you will also be dealt with.
Shopping malls and restaurants do not allow topless men.
So it's not really sexist, and women on beaches do sometimes go topless.
Even most gyms don't allow topless men in mixed areas.
In the Western world that taboo against topless women seems to be falling somewhat.
Yet, ALL Muslim men go "faceless", but many of their woman do not - that is unfair.
It is simply not a balanced argument to say all Western men can go topless all the time in every place, but women may never.
But all Muslim men go without the veil in every circumstance, and some want all the women to go with. That is blatant gender discrimination in all public circumstances.
Western society does have gender issues, but should they import or spread more, especially medieval issues?

You say "monoculturalists" will be forced to be reasonable.
Who are the "monoculturalists" who openly say Allah is not interested in democracy, and you either submit or you are basically exterminated, or relegated to third class citizens?
Every religion should get the tolerance that it gives.

What is the extent of reason?
In multiculturalism what counts as "domestic abuse" to one culture may be "honoring a wife" to another.
Western law is a joke to them, it has no value when it clashes with their beliefs.
Not only that, but theories are in the pipeline that will ban "blasphemy" in Europe, and who is to say speaking out against wife abuse will not soon be blasphemy?

Oh my hat!
Does this guy know what he's saying?


He says you must first verbally admonish a (disloyal) wife, then you must withhold sex from her, then you can beat her!
But there must be no marks?
A light spanking on the buttocks?
Perhaps with a feather-duster.

But what I wonder about: if there are three other wives, how will one notice she is not "slept" with?
Maybe she missed the message and is beaten regardless?

I'm so tired of seeing these Islamist clips telling everyone how NOT to beat their wives.
Don't leave any visible marks (blah, blah) - well what exactly is visible with the veil and the Kohl-lined eyes?

We've heard how not to beat wives, but then how exactly should they be beaten?

Sounds like ten lashes on the back or feet?
Not sure...
If it's so wonderful, then why don't they describe it?