Respected Kuwaiti Scholar on NECESSITY of Beating Your Wife

[Avatar4321]

I see no difference between Nazis and Zionists.

Zionists are like abused children who have gotten big enough to beat on someone else.

They don't deserve any sympathy.

You don't see the difference between a group of people conducting mass genocide and a group of people who want to gather together to be safe from those who want to kill them?

 

[Truthseeker420]

MEMRI’s Doctored Mickey Mouse-Hamas Story and How It Suckered the MSM

Brian Whittaker has done a terrific piece of research journalism to explain how MEMRI pulled the wool over the eyes of the international media in its reporting about a Hamas TV show, in which Mickey Mouse allegedly encourages a young Palestinian girl to profess her readiness to become a suicide bomber. Even the AP, CNN, and progressive bloggers like Matt Yglesias (Jihad TV? C’mon Matt, you can do better than that) were suckered into reporting the story pretty much as MEMRI (or in Matt’s case, Palestinian Media Watch) gave it to them. The trouble is–the program transcript as reported by MEMRI was wrongly translated:
In the Hamas video clip issued by Memri, a Mickey Mouse lookalike asks a young girl what she will do “for the sake of al-Aqsa”. Apparently trying to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says “I’ll shoot”.

The child says: “I’m going to draw a picture.”

Memri’s translation ignores this remark and instead quotes the child (wrongly) as saying: “I’ll shoot.”

Pressed further by the mouse – “What are we going to do?” – the girl replies in Arabic: “Bidna nqawim.” The normal translation of this would be “We’re going to [or want to] resist” but Memri’s translation puts a more aggressive spin on it: “We want to fight.”

The mouse continues: “What then?”

According to Memri, the child replies: “We will annihilate the Jews.”

The sound quality on the clip is not very good, but I have listened to it several times (as have a number of native Arabic speakers) and we can hear no word that might correspond to “annihilate”.

What the girl seems to say is: “Bitokhoona al-yahood” – “The Jews will shoot us” or “The Jews are shooting us.”

This is followed by further prompting – “We are going to defend al-Aqsa with our souls and blood, or are we not?”

Again, the girl’s reply is not very clear, but it’s either: “I’ll become a martyr” or “We’ll become martyrs.”

In the context of the conversation, and in line with normal Arab-Islamic usage, martyrdom could simply mean being killed by the Israelis’ shooting. However, Memri’s translation of the sentence – “I will commit martyrdom” turns it into a deliberate act on the girl’s part, and Colonel Carmon has since claimed that it refers to suicide bombers.

When I read about this story first at Matt Yglesias’ blog I wrote a doubting comment at his blog as soon as I noticed his source was Palestinian Media Watch. If you write about the Mideast conflict as long as I have you tend to know which sources are immediately credible and which are only credible if independently verified. And MEMRI is one that I never credit unless verified by a more reliable, and less tendentious source.

If I knew to keep my distance why could not AP, CNN and other publications have invested in the time it would take to ask Arabic speakers to vet MEMRI’s translation? Now, they wouldn’t have egg on their face. Of course, the problem is the damage is now done. MEMRI’s story, though false, has circulated deeply and widely. No amount of clarification from the Brian Whittakers of the world can correct the false impression planted by the anti-Arab propagandists.

MEMRI?s Doctored Mickey Mouse-Hamas Story and How It Suckered the MSM Tikun-Olam Tikun Olam-????? ????

 

[JoeB131]

And Americans are "just like Nazis" because they wanted the natives' land and took it.

Oooooh, massive analogy fail!

Not at all.

What white people did to my Cherokee ancestors WAS ******* Genocide.

The Cherokees just don't own Hollywood to keep bitching about it.

That's right. There's "no difference" between the Nazis and the Americans.



Outstanding.

You mean other than the Nazis did racial genocide when that stopped being "cool"?

Are you trying to claim what was done to Native Americans wasn't Genocide?

That when an American General Said "The only good Indian is a Dead Indian", that wasn't a genocidal attitude?

 

[JoeB131]

I see no difference between Nazis and Zionists.

Zionists are like abused children who have gotten big enough to beat on someone else.

They don't deserve any sympathy.

You don't see the difference between a group of people conducting mass genocide and a group of people who want to gather together to be safe from those who want to kill them?

They take someone else's land and systematically kill them. No difference.

Also, if I wanted to keep someone safe, I wouldn't take them into someone else's land and piss off the whole region by doing the above.

 

[JoeB131]

[
But you have no problem with terrorists taking Jews' lives.

**** this. I don't talk to terrorist-felchers.

Terrorist is one of those words we need to lose.

Just remember. When Obama Bin Laden was killing Russians, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

He became a "Terrorist" when he started killing Americans.

 

[Toro]

Not at all.

What white people did to my Cherokee ancestors WAS ******* Genocide.

The Cherokees just don't own Hollywood to keep bitching about it.

That's right. There's "no difference" between the Nazis and the Americans.



Outstanding.

You mean other than the Nazis did racial genocide when that stopped being "cool"?

Are you trying to claim what was done to Native Americans wasn't Genocide?

That when an American General Said "The only good Indian is a Dead Indian", that wasn't a genocidal attitude?

Oh, there's no doubt that there were atrocities towards the natives.

But if you think there is "no difference" between Americans and Nazis, well, that explains a lot.

edit - actually, given your bigotry towards Mormons and inability to differentiate between individuals and groups, I guess no one should be surprised.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Oh, there's no doubt that there were atrocities towards the natives.

But if you think there is "no difference" between Americans and Nazis, well, that explains a lot.

edit - actually, given your bigotry towards Mormons and inability to differentiate between individuals and groups, I guess no one should be surprised.

Actually, they were both geared towards the same problem.

Americans of the 19th century thought Indians were "savages" and racially inferior. The Mormons that you seem to still be mourning and whining about, actually thought they were CURSED BY GOD with Dark skin. (something they haven't taken out of their crazy bible yet.)

The Nazis thought the Jews had killed Jesus and there was a lot of Darwinist shit about Eugenics and stuff.

The only real difference. The Nazis lost.

Only Losers get War Crime Trials. The winners get schools named after them.

 

[daveman]

[
But you have no problem with terrorists taking Jews' lives.

**** this. I don't talk to terrorist-felchers.

Terrorist is one of those words we need to lose.

Just remember. When Obama Bin Laden was killing Russians, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

He became a "Terrorist" when he started killing Americans.

He became a terrorist when he started killing civilians.

Dumbfuck.

 

[daveman]

JoetheDumbfuck, Osomir appreciates you derailing this thread about the Islamic sanction of domestic abuse.

 

[JoeB131]

[
But you have no problem with terrorists taking Jews' lives.

**** this. I don't talk to terrorist-felchers.

Terrorist is one of those words we need to lose.

Just remember. When Obama Bin Laden was killing Russians, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

He became a "Terrorist" when he started killing Americans.

He became a terrorist when he started killing civilians.

Dumbfuck.

So then when we kill civilians in war, does that make the US "Terrorists"?

Trying to get your logic here, Caveman?

Was Hiroshima a "Terrorist" act? Or carpet bombing Baghdad? Or just to be bi-partisan here, when Clinton bombed Belgrade so he'd have something else on his history besides Lewinsky.

Or to put it another way, since the Pentagon was filled with military people, was it a valid military target?

"Are we creating more terrorists than we kill?" - Donald Rumsfeld

Good question.

 

[JoeB131]

JoetheDumbfuck, Osomir appreciates you derailing this thread about the Islamic sanction of domestic abuse.

Why do you Red State types care about Islamic domestic abuse? Frankly, you have more domestic violence in rural and red state areas than blue state areas.

You just want another excuse to feel "Superior" to Muslims. Maybe when you start acting superior, I'll take you all seriously.

We have a problem with the Muslim world because we keep sticking our dicks in the Hornet's Nest and wondering why we get stung.

Never does it occur to you people to stop sticking your dicks into the hornet's nest.

When Bin Laden said, "Hey, the Russians are teaching girls how to read. We can't have that!" Reagan gave him a shitload of weapons. And then he turned on us.

Make sweet, sweet love to that Hornet's nest.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because we are against domestic abuse regardless of the source. Especially when it's institutionalized.

 

[Toro]

[

Oh, there's no doubt that there were atrocities towards the natives.

But if you think there is "no difference" between Americans and Nazis, well, that explains a lot.

edit - actually, given your bigotry towards Mormons and inability to differentiate between individuals and groups, I guess no one should be surprised.

Actually, they were both geared towards the same problem.

Americans of the 19th century thought Indians were "savages" and racially inferior. The Mormons that you seem to still be mourning and whining about, actually thought they were CURSED BY GOD with Dark skin. (something they haven't taken out of their crazy bible yet.)

The Nazis thought the Jews had killed Jesus and there was a lot of Darwinist shit about Eugenics and stuff.

The only real difference. The Nazis lost.

Only Losers get War Crime Trials. The winners get schools named after them.

The history of the world is one people conquering another people.

The history of the world is not systematic state-sponsored genocide supported by a vast infrastructure and driven by one man's hatred and insanity because he was a failed artist and a tramp on the streets of Vienna.

But then again, you can probably relate to the latter. You hate Mormons. Hitler hated Jews. There's no difference between you and Hitler.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The history of the world is one people conquering another people.

The history of the world is not systematic state-sponsored genocide supported by a vast infrastructure and driven by one man's hatred and insanity because he was a failed artist and a tramp on the streets of Vienna. :

This is kind of a vapid view. Hitler didn't PERSONALLY kill anyone. He had millions of people who did the killing for him, and not all of them were Germans.

It wasn't just one insane guy. It was 2000 years of "You killed our Magic God Man" being fed into western culture, followed by guys like Darwin and others creating a "Scientific" rationale for racism.

It wasn't just Hitler saying "Let's kill the Jews". it was millions of other saying, "Yeah, that sounds reasonable!" Until they actually saw what they did... and felt really bad about it.

"Hey, let's show how sorry we are by displacing ANOTHER group of people!"

Hmmmm... think someone missed the point.

[But then again, you can probably relate to the latter. You hate Mormons. Hitler hated Jews. There's no difference between you and Hitler.
:

Every time I start to think you might be one of the more intelligent posters on the right, you say asspoundingly stupid things like this.

For the record. I was completely right about Romney. He lost an election the GOP should have won by a landslide. I told you it was a mistake, you did it anyway, and you can't man up and admit your fuckup.

Yes, the batshit crazy religion he belonged to turned people off. So did his slimy business practices and saying shit like "I like to fire people" and praising China for crowding 120 women into a dormatory with one can to make assholes like him richer.

He put plutocracy on the ballot, and it lost.

The funny part. Watching all the USMB Wingnuts who praised Romney to the hilt last year breaking bad on him now.

 

[JoeB131]

Because we are against domestic abuse regardless of the source. Especially when it's institutionalized.

Your whacky cult was started by a polygamist wife-beater. I think you all need to look closer to home.

This isn't any of our business, and we need to stop getting involved in it. We have plenty of problems to solve right here at home, we don't need to be going halfway around the world to look for other people's problems.

 

[GHook93]

blow it out your ass Omar! I watched the entire thing from begining to end and wrote my own notes! I esp liked the part where the douche was promoting the different sticks to beat your wife including the 8 foot one one!

Yes Omar it's hard to translate when you see the douche promoting long beat sticks!

Summary:
(1) Beating are not only allowed by the Koran they are promoted by the Koran.
(2) Without wife beatings the family dynamic breaks down and leads to divorce.
(3) Using harsh words towards a disobedient wife is a must, aka spousal mental abuse is an Islamic duty! Don't leave out breaking her down mentally also!
(4) Refusal of sex is a just reason to beat your wive.
(5) Beat your wive with one of the assortment of rods. They are the "Rods of Obedience." Do you see the size of some of those rods. They are huge. Broken bones all in the name of Islam, so it AOK.
(6) Beating one's wife is a Husband's RIGHT. He can't be prosecuted under the law, unless he kills her!
(7) A wife has no right to beat her husband, even in self-defense. "Islam spared the wife of a need to use violence." However, a wife can get another man to beat her husband, but only after she goes to court and the court awards it. Yep fat chance of that happening.
(8) Comical moment in the broadcast: Beating your wife with a handkerchief is considered "extreme" and even laughable. I would do no damage.
(9) Beating your wife sends a message: "I'm not pleased with your behavior."
(10) The cure to the mental disorders of sadism and masochism? You guessed it - BEATING YOUR WIFE!!! Not only does the Koran allow this it promotes it as a cure! Don't take the Koran's word for it, Islamic psychiatrist say it's the cure and regularly tell the husbands of their patients to start beating their wives!
(11) BIGGEST FABRICATION: The scholar actually claims: "No women died from Islamic wife beatings." OK nutbar!

So given your summary it doesn't seem as though you watched actually the video. Perhaps you simply copied and pasted this from another site?

Anyway:

"Beating" is a poor translation from the Arabic to the English. Any linguist, or theological scholar will tell you that this is often a problem when translating texts from one language to another. When we hear the word "beating" we think of violent domestic abuse. Unfortunately that happens all too often all over the world, but the "beating" in this video as it relates theologically to Islam is a purely symbolic gesture in which the husband is to strike his wife with a scarf (or handkerchief as he says in the video) in a way that does not leave a mark on her to symbolize how poorly the situation is. It is the last ditch effort to ward off divorce and it not for every ay use (It is not for everyday acts of disobedience, or for use in arguments). It is not something that is theologically allowed to be done out of anger either. This style of symbolism was passed down from Muhammad's farewell speech through Ibn Abbas.

To cover a few of your more off specific points:

3.) He doesn't say that speaking harshly is a must, he said that it is better for family unity to resolves things through dialogue, not domestic abuse, and he said that the type of dialogue depends on the personality of the women. His talk is quite misogynistic, but he lumps women into different categories depending on what they might respond to best.
The sticks in the video are not something that he is telling people to hit their wives with, just the opposite he is telling people that isn't acceptable.

4.) Not true. Though this is a general cultural belief that persists in many countries (including non-Islamic ones). The refusal of a woman to share the bed of her husband in Islam signifies marital problems. There are a number of steps to be taken before the symbolic hit with the scarf occurs, and generally such a thing under jurisprudential codes comes after months or even years of continued denial and problems. If a guy comes home from work and his wife doesn't want to have sex because she has a headache he isn't allowed theologically to hit her, let alone beat her.

5.) I'm not sure where this one even came from, the rods he is holding are rods that he says are completely unjust to hit your wife with. He replaces them later with the handkerchief that he waves around while talking about Ibn Abbas. And you mention broken bones, but the strike isn't even allowed to leave a bruise let alone break bones.

6.) Once again this happens all too often in developing countries, but theologically under traditional Islamic jurisprudential sets that isn't true at all. In fact even in this video he says that a woman has the right to take her husband to court for issues of mistreatment including domestic abuse. I have actual primary document records of such legal cases throughout the course of the Ottoman Empire if you'd like me to reference them.

7.) This is true. The symbolic striking is something that is generally for men to utilize though there have been cases where women utilize it as well. Islam was constructed during a time in which traditional patriarchal structures prevailed and that trickled into the theological aspects of Islam. We see the same sorts of patriarchal family structures in other religions as well. I don't particularly care for them, but then again that's one reason why I'm not religious.

8.) I think you misread the translation there.

10.) Yeah that was an odd segment, he said "beat your wife in a very specific way". He didn't elaborate on that, and the treatment of such disorders is not an area of Islamic jurisprudence that I have a lot of experience in, but I imagine it shouldn't be among the "harsh beatings" that he differentiates with earlier. Aka leave no mark, and not allowed to strike the face. I could be wrong there though, I've never studied such a case.

 

[GHook93]

Inb4 "Christianity is just as bad".

You are a fool and a douche bag. Only a person that takes the name American Communist would be that clueless.

Christian countries:
(1) Protect religion minorities and all have a large minority population. Muslim countries like Iran, Sauda Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Gaza etc all are in the 95%+ Muslim range, routinely persecute their minorities. Muslim countries like Lebanon and Egypt with sizable Christian minorities, ethnically cleanse the minority, enact pograms and force the Christians to flee the country.

(2) Christian countries protect women's rights. See the video, women are see as less than dogs in Muslim countries.

(3) Muslims are intolerant. Christians accept everyone (except gays).

(4) Christian country, while most don't allow gays to marry, protect gays human rights. Muslim countries persecute and murder gays.

(5) Muslim countries restrict freedoms like to the press, religion, open election and private property and enterprise. Christian countries are some of the most free, democratic and private property open in the world.

(6) Muslim countries persecute muslims who convert. Christian countries allow conversion without controversy.

(7) Christian countries respect and protect Jews. Muslim countries forcefully purged their countries of their once sizable Jewish populations.

(8) Christian provide more charity, help, assistance, free medicinie and medical care and disaster relief than any other religion on the world. Muslim countries occassionally donate to terrorist funding and headliners (like Haiti relief), but they are usually the least charitiable people.

See a loser like you will protect Islam (because you're a coward) by equating it to Christianity. They are nothing alike and to do so is a weak red herring!

Wow, you SO got his post wrong.

In any thread even remotely critical of Islam, the typical progressive response is, "Well, yeah, that's kinda bad, I guess -- but XTIANITY is MUCH worse!!"

He's not protecting Islam. He's condemning the hypocrisy of progressives who protect Islam by attacking Christianity.

I didn't see that in his post, esp from a guy the uses the avatar American Communist!

 

[GHook93]

GHook, you can drag up all the Muslim Bogeymen you want.

I'm still of the attitude of "**** Israel" and all the wars it keeps dragging us into.

Good for you, want a cookie?

 

[GHook93]

[q

If you don't want to be called a Nazi, don't say Nazi shit, dumbfuck.

Ball's in your court. Keep whining.

I see no difference between Nazis and Zionists.

Zionists are like abused children who have gotten big enough to beat on someone else.

They don't deserve any sympathy.

That is because you are a worthless antisemite coward!

 

[High_Gravity]

Kuwaiti Scholar Jassem Al-Mutawa: Wife Beating in Islam Treats Women Suffering from Masochism - YouTube

These are from the mouth of the lion. He said them and he owns them. Nothing out of context.

Summary:
(1) Beating are not only allowed by the Koran they are promoted by the Koran.
(2) Without wife beatings the family dynamic breaks down and leads to divorce.
(3) Using harsh words towards a disobedient wife is a must, aka spousal mental abuse is an Islamic duty! Don't leave out breaking her down mentally also!
(4) Refusal of sex is a just reason to beat your wive.
(5) Beat your wive with one of the assortment of rods. They are the "Rods of Obedience." Do you see the size of some of those rods. They are huge. Broken bones all in the name of Islam, so it AOK.
(6) Beating one's wife is a Husband's RIGHT. He can't be prosecuted under the law, unless he kills her!
(7) A wife has no right to beat her husband, even in self-defense. "Islam spared the wife of a need to use violence." However, a wife can get another man to beat her husband, but only after she goes to court and the court awards it. Yep fat chance of that happening.
(8) Comical moment in the broadcast: Beating your wife with a handkerchief is considered "extreme" and even laughable. I would do no damage.
(9) Beating your wife sends a message: "I'm not pleased with your behavior."
(10) The cure to the mental disorders of sadism and masochism? You guessed it - BEATING YOUR WIFE!!! Not only does the Koran allow this it promotes it as a cure! Don't take the Koran's word for it, Islamic psychiatrist say it's the cure and regularly tell the husbands of their patients to start beating their wives!
(11) BIGGEST FABRICATION: The scholar actually claims: "No women died from Islamic wife beatings." OK nutbar!

Not much of a surprise, beating your wife is part of the culture in Islamic countries.