“There must be violence against women.” January 4, 2008 Jill Um. Sometimes, words fail. Thanks to Thomas for the link.
I recently saw a Christian ‘surrendered marriage’ site that advocated basically the same thing. It’s funny. The wingnuts hate each other so much but they have so much in common.
Maged, darling, you’re such an arsehole. There’s a perception over here in Australia that “feminists” “never” criticise societies which practice these type of things “because culture trumps feminism”. I wish those people would read here, but I’m not holding my breath.
Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us. Oh yeah. I’ll TOTALLY keep that in mind. Asshat. And to think that some moron wished death on me today . . .
Eileen, Cite the Christian site. Then we can make our own judgment whether it advocates beating women. I don’t think that it does.
Eileen its always easier to hate someone similar, but somewhat different, than it is to hate someone truly different. Of course fundie Christians hate fundie Muslims, the only difference between the two is the name they use to address their deity. And, I can’t help but notice that its *always* that something is wrong with women for these people. Morals == keeping women down. At least they’re consistant.
On first glance, I thought the quote implied something like, “Even though I haven’t personally witnessed it, there must be violence against women out there because women are ending up beaten and bruised.” I guess I’m a little naive.
Melody, I was hoping for that alternate meaning, but w/ that kinda lead-in…And what, exactly, is the point of this article? The disgruntled spouse is to start out w/ abandoning the marital bed, complaining to family, divorce if the situation’s untenable…and women must be beaten b/c otherwise, they’d be clogging police stations w/ their complaints? Or doing things that’d have the menfolk clogging the police stations? I guess trying to set up peaceful mediations for problems that don’t initially involve violence would just be crazy, and counterproductive…
They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable. So here he seems to be saying that the Quran doesn’t advocate wife-beating at all… but he still does? I’m confused.
That last sentence says it all: I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion. Cultural invasion my ass. What happened to shame. Rather than trembling and whining about the far-off dread foreigner, who in the main doesn’t give a damn about their disgusting parody of a culture, maybe this fool and his audience should apply themselves to attempting not to act like swine in their own homes.
Jill, I just read those 2 links and if it weren’t for the fact that he’s sleeping, I’d go give MY husband a big hug right now! Argh, I love your blogging, but sometimes I wear down my teeth a bit grinding them afterwards…
I happen to be of Yemeni descent, and let me make it clear that to beat your wife, daughter, sister, etc is NOT a part of the overt culture any more than it is in the States. Physical violence is a means to control women, just like every other disgusting patriarchal, mysogynistic method and is “disliked” enough by the majority to say “Oh, how horrible!” but not enough to say “This shit has got to stop-now!”
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms? Likewise! A woman violating a social norm is harming a man in the same way that a man beating up a woman is harming that woman. God help the woman who actually harms a man physically (Of course if it’s a capital crime for a woman to violate social norms, I don’t see much disincentive for violence against men). Most men I know will visibly shudder if the topic of Lorena Bobbit comes up. We’re exceptionally stupid dogs to these patriarchalists; our behavior reflects our obedience training, and if they have to hit us with a rolled up newspaper, well, it was our own damn fault for jumping up on the couch. Except instead of a newspaper, it’s dozens of rocks, or gasoline, or a stick, or his fists. What a worthless, gangrenous, fetid hemorrhoid on the ass of humanity this author is.
WTF. I noticed the same hypocricy… Rosehiptea noted it. You claim to abide by your religion, cite your holy text, and then argue that it is right and religious to do just the opposite? What? I must be new to this. :/
I think the “Taken in Hand” site is a little more like role play/BDSM (though with a Christian structure?) than condoning violence, though I might be seeing a vibe that isn’t really there. The ‘we can’t have women complaining about their husbands to the police and courts’ argument is interesting; if the police and/or courts aren’t going to do anything about it, it would be a waste of everyone’s time, wouldn’t it? I’m not sure that’s really what the author was thinking though (something more like ‘we can’t have women turning on their men’?)
bushfire, The author’s take on that is to say that wives beat their husbands all the time…metaphorically. According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?
“If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This speaker is fucking mad. And I’m pretty damn mindful about it.
I’m still not entirely sure I got the point of that column, if there was one to begin with, but as far as I could tell the message was, “Courts are a drag; say it with fists.” Did I more or less get it? If so, there are an unfortunate number of communities here in the U.S. that probably see nothing wrong with that at all.
Bushfire: According to the author, the Qu’ran denotes specific steps in a domestic dispute – which, he rushes to assure us, applies to BOTH men and women, REALLY! – which, of course, allows men to “slightly” (“slightly”? WTF does that even mean?) beat their wives…. but does not prescribe the same step to the women. Wives’ options are: sleep on the couch, go to another house, ask for a divorce; husbands get to: sleep on the couch, have someone else tell the wife what an unreasonable bitch she’s being, then beat their wives. (Slightly!) And then ask for a divorce, if she’s really out of line. But beating them into submission (slightly!) usually keeps ’em in line.
Doug – I think the point of the article was that the Koran does not advocate husbands beating their wives so they shouldn’t. However, it does say that Fathers should beat their daughters or brothers should beat their sisters if they disobey certain rules. He is saying there must be violence against women in the form of father/brother beatings because if there were not women would be dirty, dirty whores and all of society would be destroyed. And that by trying to get rid of all beatings, instead of just the un-Muslim husband ones, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations are trying to destroy Muslim society.
Id like to think that Mohammed’s instructions were meant to address a prior condition of unrestrained savagery: to bring along the arrogant, to sublimate, change their impulse to control to one to protect. Like king Arthur did with his men of war in The Once and Future King. But it’s clear, as sotonohito says, that for this guy morals equals keeping women down: he’s using religion as a pretense for his own foolish pride, like Bush does with freedom. But that’s all become clear now; we hear as the song says, ‘the sound of pretenses falling all around’. Given a choice, we’d turn away from these traitors, and that gives me hope.
“I think the “Taken in Hand” site is a little more like role play/BDSM (though with a Christian structure?) than condoning violence, though I might be seeing a vibe that isn’t really there.” Except that consent is a really huge thing in role play/BDSM circles. You don’t get to just beat on your partner because you’ve got a penis and that means God gave you permission. Pretty much everything I’ve seen from the Christian Domestic Discipline adherents is that the husband’s authority to use corporal punishment against his wife derives from God and is not something that the wife can abrogate.
“…consent is a really huge thing in role play/BDSM circles. You don’t get to just beat on your partner because you’ve got a penis…” Or a strap-on! 😉
My favorite quote from the article: the husband yields to beating the wife slightly Yields to? As in, “this hurts me more than it hurts you”? Not to be a cultural snob, but that whole article reads like it was not very well translated from Arabic (or Farsi, Dari, whatever).
Just your typical Islamic website. Wife beating is condoned by all major Islamic scholars. Youtube is full of official clips of Media from the middle east of mullahs pontificating on the nuances of how and where exactly you can beat your women.
Elizabeth, thanks for your comment — that does help a lot in explaining what seemed to be a contradiction in the article. Dinesh D’Souza pretty much covered this in his book on how if America weren’t so full of feminists, homosexuals, atheists etc., Muslim extremists wouldn’t have a problem with us and there wouldn’t be a problem with terrorism. 9/11 is like an inkblot test for what one hates oneself: if you’re on the left and hate American imperialism, that’s the reason terrorists attacked us; if you’re on the right and hate America’s moral degeneracy, that’s the reason terrorists attacked us. W. Kiernan, I do think this is a significant problem that many Americans haven’t quite grasped: the West has such a negative connotation in many Muslim countries that anything associated with it is deemed bad. Democracy and women’s rights are tinged with the negative feelings that many Muslims have toward the U.S. because of history, Israel, etc., and thus American feminists can’t show their assistance toward feminists in those countries, for fear that the local efforts will be discredited by the association.
One of the tenets of Taken in Hand is that “The man has the balance of power and control.” I think that differs from BDSM pretty significantly since BDSM allows both men and women to be dominant.
Just your typical Islamic website. Wife beating is condoned by all major Islamic scholars. Youtube is full of official clips of Media from the middle east of mullahs pontificating on the nuances of how and where exactly you can beat your women. that’s a really ridiculous statement.
Yes , the man’s an evil f*k, I would like to know whether he’s a regular and paid commentator or just a letter writer. Either way, what’s the surprise in that some men bemoan the fact that women have the right to complaign about violence. lots of mens groups in aus say the same thing in slightly more restrained language. “poor me, the evil courts always believe those stinking whores.”
Meghan, Gorean BDSM (yeah, a real movement based on the “blah blah blah of Gor” books by John Norman) is dominant men only. BDSM is not a cohesive community with rules that everyone agrees to. Some people are just as patriarchal as they can manage.
Just your typical Islamic website Wtf? It’s not an Islamic website- bright light. It’s a national newspaper. And Youtube? Honestly? Get a grip…