A PROPOSAL to introduce prison terms for men who beat their wives goes against the Koran and the teachings of the “prophet” Mohammed, according to the head of Algeria’s Superior Islamic Council.
Wife-beating for Dummies: the Koran
Qaher Sharif fiercely criticised the bill presented to the country’s head of state by Farouk Qustantiti, of the Consultative Council on Human Rights. A “stunned” and outraged Sharif told the Arab-language edition of the daily newspaper El Khabar:
This man’s aim is to violate a law of the Koran and of the Sunnah, and he meddles in subjects that are beyond his competence. H’s done it before with the death penalty, and now with beatings.
Sharif then asked:
What difference can it make to him [Qustantiti] what goes on between a man and his wife?
The President of the Islamic Council said that he was stunned by Qustanti’s proposal, because:
God has already pointed out precisely the way that a husband must behave towards his wife.
He quoted verses 34 and 35 of the Surah on women, in which men are advised to:
Admonish women, confine them to their bed and beat them should they commit ‘nushooz’.
So wives having new shoes is a crime in Islam?
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. Nushooz is a term used to describe both infidelity and a refusal of sexual intercourse.
Sharif pointed out that the text is so precise that it indicates the method of punishment to be used against the wife, and that this should be neither:
Too insistent, nor provoke disfigurement.
Hat tip: Alan
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 16th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
“Ladies and gentlemen, this plane will shortly be landing in Algeria. Please don’t forget to put your watches back 2,500 years.”
March 16th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Religion -the most sick perversion of humans ever to arise.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Now I understand why some men are so keen on the Burqa and Niqab – especially in western countries with their pesky laws on domestic violence.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
But he’s right, isn’t he? Either you’re a Muslim – in which case you follow the teachings of Mohammed – or you’re not!
March 16th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
one for you barryd
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho.....-Jedi.html
March 16th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
rog
Ta for the Jedi link.
When me and my siblings post a card to our father we always replace “Mr” with “Jedi Master” in the address. As a bloke in his mid-seventies this really winds him up. I wonder what the postman thinks?
March 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Back on topic again.
Fuck an’ punch isn’t it? Or the other way round.
Muslims have an interesting concept of foreplay.
I can’t imagine a bloke forcing himself on his missus after clipping her. He may get to sink his shaft and chuck his muck but I bet the wife just lays there hoping his vinegar strokes come sooner, rather than later.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
check this out
http://www.freethoughtperspective.net
March 16th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Has this been mentioned here before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58
“Allah The Merciful”!
March 16th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Interesting and frightening point made by Chris.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Either you’re a Muslim – in which case you follow the teachings of Mohammed – or you’re not!
Yes, I guess that is technically right. It is rather a truism that fundamentalists tend to have a better understanding of, and a closer adherence to, the key texts than moderates who prefer not to look at the nastier bits.
I have known a fair number of people who sincerely call themselves muslims who would look at you as if you were mad if you were to suggest they put these rules into practice. Just as I have known many catholics who pay no attention to pontifications.
It’s not that long ago that slapping the wife around was considered a purely private matter in this country. So, Marcus, not 2,500 years. More like 50.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
You won’t believe this one either! He actually says: “We must follow reason” – I very nearly died laughing!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDSflu4Xhbg
There just aren’t words to describe this level of idiocy.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
I think you’re a bit wide of the mark there, Don. Abusing women has been frowned upon in Christian societies for generations, despite some aberrant behaviour. Generally speaking, in the western world, men who beat their wives have been looked down upon by the rest of society, even if a level of domestic violence was condoned at one time. Certainly, no one in my family has acted in this way within memory (and I include my great-grandparents here), and I come from solid working class stock. If anything, on both sides of the family, it would have been the men who would have had most to fear!
March 16th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
And this is the religion that wants to be taken seriously??????
The wife’s should do a ‘Bobbitt’ when the tossers fall asleep.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
How about they just lobotomize their females at birth. That way they won’t have to worry about them doing anything “evil” like thinking independently or “disobeying”.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Buffy
Maybe that’s just it.
All they want is a womb churning out plenty of orcs.
Just what Earth needs isn’t it?
March 16th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Wife beating. Hmmm? I remember walking out of my house, going to work in the middle of an argument, and my first wife hit me so hard with a copper bottom frying pan that it bent it. By all rights, I should have decked the bitch, but, I got in my car and went to work.
I guess my point is that sometimes when women think they can use physical violence to get their way, a black eye is appropriate. If you want to play big boy games, you play by big boy rules.
But, there are guys out there that control their women by beating the crap out of them. And those women seem to stay and take it. I can’t understand either side of that equation, because women aren’t sexy when they’re wearing bruises and stitches, and getting the crap kicked out of you really hurts!!!! Obviously, something had to be done for the women, and their children in those situations.
So, the idea of a father being immune to prosecution for abusing his family is unspeakable. Oh, yeah, instead of an angry wacko father killing his wife and children, then himself, it would be him killing his wife and children, then walking away into the sunset. Wisdom of Allah.
NeoWolfe
March 17th, 2010 at 3:27 am
marriage is a combination of slavery and prostitution
the only dignity is to live alone
March 17th, 2010 at 8:27 am
@ barriejohn
Nope. Sorry, Don is right.
As a female – and a feminist – I am aware that husbands beating wives was considered a matter of shame, for the wife, until the mid 1900s. And that the corporal punishment of children was standard, accepted procedure as late as 1970.
Police called out on “domestic issues” usually just asked the couple to “make less noise”. Occasionally, a man was arrested for “disturbing the peace” and released next morning.
Judge Tudor Rees, claimed in 1948 that the common law permitted the ‘rule of thumb’ chastisement of wife by husband (“being beaten by a stick no thicker than his thumb“). Usually reserved for ‘run away’ wives brought back by the police.
In England: There was no law against a man raping his wife until 1991.
Any wages earned by a wife in England, was deemed to be those of her husband. His money, his tax return.
Hard to escape when the Tax office immediately informs the husband where you are. This remained the basic rule until 1990.
March 17th, 2010 at 8:55 am
I’m with Don & gsw on this one. 50 years is about the mark.
My grandfather was “the man” and beat his wife and eleven kids regularly after boozing. He managed to get thru WW1 unscathed but I’m sure it left scars that were not physical.
My father told me that when Taid was drunk his mother would lock herself and the younger kids in the coalshed until it was safe.
The police wouldn’t touch him (fear) and he had his own seat in the workingmen’s club. Giving birth to eleven children obviously shows my nan’s fear and most of her male children joined the Army to get out when of age. My father did this and said he never went home again. If he did, he said he would have to hit him.
I have a photo of of my younger brother sitting in his pushchair. It’s 1971 and the pic shows our father looking down on little bro with a fatherly smile. Look a little closer and you’ll see Dad is wearing a black tie. It’s “the man’s” funeral day. Good riddance.
Domestic violence is not tolerated today in the way it was here just two generations ago. Other cultures have some catching up to do.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:18 am
@gsw
“Any wages earned by a wife in England, was deemed to be those of her husband. His money, his tax return.”
I’m not English, but when I come home with “A Fist Fulla Dollars” my missus grabs it and says “I’ll look after this”.
She does it with biscuits and chocolate too. I know they’re here, but can I find them?
March 17th, 2010 at 9:19 am
not two black eyes in the picture?
guess she didn’t need to be told twice
March 17th, 2010 at 9:54 am
@Broadsword Calling Danny Boy:
An’ the times, they is a chaaa..nngin’
I can only suggest buying liquorish!
March 17th, 2010 at 11:18 am
For what it’s worth, spousal rape was not legal in the UK in 1990, it was simply uncertain whether you could make the charges stick. Someone tried in 1991 and they stuck. In 1750-something they would not have done. The exact date when society stopped thinking it was okay is not on record.
For comparison, it was the 1800s when women got the right to choose their own husband instead of the one their parents wanted them to choose. I don’t have a date for that one but it was in the reign of Queen Victoria.
March 17th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
@Harry:
OK, you are correct, the official date was 1991 not 1990.
Reg. v. J. (Rape Marital Exemption) [1991]
In the case in 1990, the man who repealed against a rape charge on the basis that there was an understanding that:
“by virtue of section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 the offence of rape was one which was not known to the law where the defendant was the husband of the alleged victim.” was found guilty after it was shown that the wife had moved out “with the intention of divorcing him”. So there was no longer an existing implicit permission for sex.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/rvr.htm
March 17th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Okay, it’s not quite as I remember it, but reading up, in the 1990 case the courts ruled that the question of marriage=consent was irrelevant to the case. It was then clarified that yes, marriage did and does imply consent, but that implicit or explicit refusal trumps implicit consent, either by moving out or by simply saying ‘No’.
Still, you have to wonder how many women didn’t seek legal redress because they didn’t think the courts would find against their husbands.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Why don’t they go the whole hog and keep their women on collars and leads!
March 17th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Please read my blog read how islam will win the
clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
March 17th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
@ Kope: Your comment does not address the subject of this post – and your blog indicates that you are unhealthily fixated on women’s breasts. Islam “will win the
clash of civilization”? You’re having a laugh, fella.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
To be fair, the lady in the photograph looks perfectly happy.
June 27th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Islam dosent support men who beat up their wifes the whole artical is trash, i went to the east and i remmeber how men treated their wifes like all countrys theres some sick men ,plp cant judge the country or islam because of one artical or because of a story, we have many sick men and many sick storys in amirca and in all countrys, but we are all humans and no one is better than the other because of there pasport so plp shut the fuck up !!!! because you are talking about somthing you know nothing about.