Does Islam condone wife-beating? Yes.

Australian Politics, Identity Politics, Islam, Law, Rundown, Terrorism

Yesterday, a video of two Islamic women demonstrating and justifying wife-beating in Islam made headlines around the world for promoting violence and ideas that violate Western values. Representing the women’s branch of violent extremist Islamic group Hizb-ul-Tahrir, the two women, one of whom is a primary school teacher, examined particular Quranic verses that permit husbands to lightly beat their wives as a form of punishment using a small rod called a ‘siwaak’ or a ‘coiled scarf’. It created a scandal for revealing Islam for what it is, a violent anti-woman ideology that for some reason continues to receive support from feminists, many of whom celebrate it as a ‘feminist religion’.

As a response to the video, feminists and Muslims, and those oxymoronic individuals who identify as both, defended the religion and its teachings. This was nowhere more evident than in a Sky News interview of Silma Ihram, Principal of the ‘Noor Al Houda Islamic College’ in Sydney. She criticised the Hizb-ul-Tahrir video as ignoring the context and purpose of the verse. She also denounced a quote used in the video as “a very patriarchal interpretation of a complex Quranic text”, making evident her progressive Western perspective that has nothing to do with Islam.

But when asked to explain the context, Ihram unsurprisingly refused, citing that she is not an Islamic scholar and thus unable to give a proper explanation. Yet again, another pathetic and clichéd tactic has been used by an Islamic promoter of racial tolerance. Step 1: criticise her own holy book as patriarchal, a stance obviously influenced by her residence in a Western country which prevents her from seeing Islam for what it is. Step 2: denounce the use of the quote as invalid due to an apparent lack of contextual consideration, and to top it all off, end it with step 3 by not being able to provide an explanation of what the context really is.

But what does the Quran say about wife-beating? Ihram may refuse to tell the truth about her religion, but even a Muslim cannot oppose what the Quran actually states: Quran (4:34) – “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

In Quran 38:44: “And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath…”, which involves Allah encouraging Job to beat his wife. What does the argument of context and purpose matter when the holiest book of Islam explicitly condones and justifies wife-beating? Empty arguments used by progressive Western Muslims to prevent the majority of Australians from knowing the truth about Islam are rendered ignorant when looking at actual Quran verses.

Ihram further flaunts her ignorance by saying that the Prophet Mohammed did not condone any violence against women. But here again she is lying about her own religion and in fact committing blasphemy in order to keep the majority of Australians ignorant to the real nature of her religion. She is deeply misunderstood about the Scriptural references that state Mohammed beat his wife Aisha, and actually laughed when hearing that his fathers-in-law also disciplined their daughters.

In Sahih Muslim 4:2127, Mohammed is described as striking his wife Aisha in the chest for leaving the house without her permission. Aisha says, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.” If, according to Ihram, this is the ideal man of Islam whose life epitomises Islamic teachings, then the fact that Islam supports wife beating is beyond dispute.

Progressive Muslims living in Western countries are completely misunderstood about their own religion, and/or they intentionally spread lies in order to prevent the majority of the population knowing truth about Islam. As evident in the Quran and in the Hadiths, along with the life of Mohammed, Islam permits wife beating. Furthermore, Islamic scholars themselves support it, which answers Ihram for questioning what Islamic scholars would actually say. Attempts by Western Muslims to cover up their religion and separate violent Islamic teachings from their religion has only resulted in them losing their credibility. An actual assessment of Islam through the use of its texts renders them wrong, and instead further supports Islam’s incompatibility in anywhere other than its place of origin.

  • I think it is very good that there are Muslims who are opposed to wife beating and have convinced themselves that the Quran does not justify it. However, you are telling them that if they want to be good Muslims they should support wife beating. This does not strike me as productive. I am sure that Al Qaeda and Daesh (ISIS) would agree with you.

    There are still Christian sects in the US that endorse the “chastisement” of wives. They seem to think it is based on scripture.

    The legal right to “chastise” your wife was only removed relatively recently in the west.

    “In the UK the traditional right of a husband to inflict moderate corporal punishment on his wife in order to keep her “within the bounds of duty” was similarly removed in 1891.[5][6]

    “In the 1870s, courts in the United States overruled the common-law principle that a husband had the right to “physically chastise an errant wife”.[7][page needed]”

    • Möwe

      What is the relevance to this discussion of laws that were changed over a hundred years ago? And if it is still occurring with various Christian sects in the USA, then that is a separate issue to be dealt with separately.

      What you are doing is attempting to make Islam and Christianity morally equivalent. This is based on a simple atheist algorithm, namely 0=0. According to atheism, all religions are worth the same amount, because they are all fiction. However the different religions are demonstrably not the same. Christianity is better than Islam. Buddhism is better than it, too. Therefore the moral equivalence and 0=0 equation are not appropriate here.

      However the moral equivalence argument tends to seem wise and is accepted on, say, a simple, shallow show like Q&A. That is why people keep using it.

      The point is not what some Christian sects are doing or what was on the books century ago. The point is that the Koran, which is supposedly the last word of the Creator of the Universe until doomsday, says a husband may beat his wife. This is not up for debate and it is pretty easy to understand.

      The best that can be done, as the interviewee on ABC apparently did, is say that we kuffars don’t understand the ‘context’ and we should not think about it anymore. But, say you are a Muslim man and you want to do the ‘right thing’. Who has moral authority in your life? The laws and mores of Australia, which seem to change a lot nowadays, and that are based on what you consider to be a kuffar religion (Christianity) anyway? Or the last and definitive word of one whom you consider to be the Creator of the Universe, and shariah law? What does the wealth, abundance and safety of Australian life mean to such a man? It’s just impermanent material effects which will all vanish in the end anyway.

      If Islam were superior to other religions, it would have shown that by now. We would be looking to places like Iran and Pakistan as the best places to live. But we don’t.

      Islam works best when its adherents ignore the teachings of the Koran. That’s because Islam is wrong and it’s best to avoid things that are wrong. That is also why Turkey was so successful as a secular republic, at least when compared to other Muslim-majority countries. But now they are slipping back. I think many atheists hope that Muslims will eventually ignore the Koran, as you suggested. Better that they are liberated from their wrong cult and Islam ceases to exist, I’d say.