Watch: Muslim Women Explain How Men Should Hit Their Wives by Hizb ut-Tahrir in Sydney, Australia

[XamarCade]

Subxanallah, the future dwellers of Jahannam are once again mocking Allah's words. Istaqfurallah

 

[Arman]

Another mistranslation. If you read the hadith in arabic you'd know that the word used was to push away and that she felt pain as in sadness

Aisha (RA) also reported that the Prophet (SAW) never hit anyone, let alone women.

Aisha said: “Allaah’s Messenger (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand ever, except when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman.” [Recorded In Ibn Majah. Al-Albani graded it Sahih.]

Aisha reports: ”Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did not hit Anything with his hands, besides the time when he made Jihaad in the Path of Allah. He did not hit a servant nor a woman (wife, girl etc.)”. [Shamaail‐e‐Tirmidhi (331) Hadith Number 6.]

‘Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: Messenger of Allah (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand neither a servant nor a woman but of course, he did fight in the Cause of Allah. He never took revenge upon anyone for the wrong done to him, but of course, he exacted retribution for the sake of Allah in case the Injunctions of Allah about unlawful acts were violated. [Muslim Arabic/English book reference : Book 1, Hadith 644]

if Allah didnt want it to be interpreted that way he could've and would've used other words so that it could be clearer and not easily misinterpreted (if he is perfect that is and not flawed Muhammad)

even pro-islam websites admit that a man can hit his wife, here's a link, they even quoted a hadith i did not know of for you

there are more hadiths about wife beating, if you want me to quote them, just ask

https://islamqa.info/en/41199

Did you get that from wikiislam?

Fitna means a test or being tested. It can be used in many different situations.

lets be honest with ourselves, it's a tool to silence people

So you came up with your conclusion by looking at websites. How do you know the information you got came from qualified people?

I wonder if you have the same standards to researching scientific papers as you do studying Islam.

Amazing you all end up going back to the stop making assumptions about me act. You were just talking about low these women's IQs were when most likely your relatives believe in the same thing.

I only check reputable websites and i was not insulting them with whatever low IQ fabrication insult you made up. I was commenting on how these people are brainwashed by Islam with no offense towards them.

Too bad that's all you seem to get out of it. God guides who He wills and sends astray who He wills

It's never too late to have a change in viewpoint.

Astray in your opinion. I'm not the one who follows the life of a 7th century Arab more than a millennium after his death.

 

[AussieHustler]

This is a common mistranslation. The meaning of that verse is that the husband is entitled to separate from her as temporarily live separately or get a divorce.

The Prophet (SAW) never hit his wives, whenever he got into an argument with one of his wives he would tell her to stay with her parents and have the in-laws mediate between them.

You'd never know this if you just take the verse literally and not take into account how it was applied in real life by the Prophet and his companions.

merka

what sect do you follow? I ask you this because prior to Salafism, most Somalis used to follow the Shafi school of thought and their scholars interpret this issue at hand the same way as Hizbul-Tahriir folks in the video above. You are only bringing to this debate a 21st century modern human thoughts, but your scholars of all sects agree on the interpretation of sura 4;34

From the Shafi School's book of sharia, 'Reliance of the Traveller—a Sharia Law Manual.' pages 540-542

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41hKGOa9koL._SX296_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

http://derprophet.info/inhalt/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/reliance2_complete.pdf

On the above pages of this Shafi school sharia manual, it states;

If a wife does not satisfy one of the above-mentioned obligations, she shall be deemed rebellious and her husband shall take the following measures to put her straight:

(a) admonition and advice, by explaining to her the unlawfulness of her rebellion and its nefarious consequences for the marriage, and by listening to her own point of view;

(b) in case admonition is ineffective, he shall no longer share one bed with her, by which both shall learn to what extent they have need of one another;

(c) if keeping aloof from her does not help, he shall be allowed to beat her if he is of the opinion that this will put her again on the righteous path, but otherwise it is not permitted. Beating her must not leave her with injuries and is the ultimate step in trying to save the family;

(d) if the difference of opinion cannot be resolved thereafter, each partner shall choose an arbiter to help solve the conflict or to dissolve the marriage into divorce.

As you can see, it is mainstream Muslims who believe beating a wife is enshrined in the Koran.

As for Aisha, she has narrated many conflicting hadiths like these 2 below; It could be understood that when Mohamed is asked for advise based on the Koran, when none existed, he used to issue Jewish Laws or ask for time for a "wahye" on the matter, did he later change his views? Possibly.

Muslim, 30.5756:

"A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may Peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious."

..And here is another opposing one where she recounts Mohamed's mishandling of her;

Sahih Muslim 4.2127:

“... He beat me on my breasts, which was painful, and then said to me: were you under the impression that Allah and His Apostle would ever behave unjustly? ...”

There is this thought process among some senior Muslim scholars that Mohamed banned hitting wives at the beginning but when Omer (who was the most violent towards his wives) complained to Mohamed that their wives are revolting against them and they are losing control of their women, he relented and told to beat them lightly and not cause them bruises or death. They base their argument on this Hadith,

Bukhari 3.43.648:

‘We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar [in Medina], we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back.

In conclusion, hitting wives is enshrined in the Koran and all the major schools agree on it but what they differ is what is meant by "lightly".

 

[merka]

merka

what sect do you follow? I ask you this because prior to Salafism, most Somalis used to follow the Shafi school of thought and their scholars interpret this issue at hand the same way as Hizbul-Tahriir folks in the video above. You are only bringing to this debate a 21st century modern human thoughts, but your scholars of all sects agree on the interpretation of sura 4;34

From the Shafi School's book of sharia, 'Reliance of the Traveller—a Sharia Law Manual.' pages 540-542

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41hKGOa9koL._SX296_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

http://derprophet.info/inhalt/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/reliance2_complete.pdf

On the above pages of this Shafi school sharia manual, it states;

If a wife does not satisfy one of the above-mentioned obligations, she shall be deemed rebellious and her husband shall take the following measures to put her straight:

(a) admonition and advice, by explaining to her the unlawfulness of her rebellion and its nefarious consequences for the marriage, and by listening to her own point of view;

(b) in case admonition is ineffective, he shall no longer share one bed with her, by which both shall learn to what extent they have need of one another;

(c) if keeping aloof from her does not help, he shall be allowed to beat her if he is of the opinion that this will put her again on the righteous path, but otherwise it is not permitted. Beating her must not leave her with injuries and is the ultimate step in trying to save the family;

(d) if the difference of opinion cannot be resolved thereafter, each partner shall choose an arbiter to help solve the conflict or to dissolve the marriage into divorce.

As you can see, it is mainstream Muslims who believe beating a wife is enshrined in the Koran.

As for Aisha, she has narrated many conflicting hadiths like these 2 below; It could be understood that when Mohamed is asked for advise based on the Koran, when none existed, he used to issue Jewish Laws or ask for time for a "wahye" on the matter, did he later change his views? Possibly.

Muslim, 30.5756:

"A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may Peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious."

..And here is another opposing one where she recounts Mohamed's mishandling of her;

Sahih Muslim 4.2127:

“... He beat me on my breasts, which was painful, and then said to me: were you under the impression that Allah and His Apostle would ever behave unjustly? ...”

There is this thought process among some senior Muslim scholars that Mohamed banned hitting wives at the beginning but when Omer (who was the most violent towards his wives) complained to Mohamed that their wives are revolting against them and they are losing control of their women, he relented and told to beat them lightly and not cause them bruises of death. They base their argument on this Hadith,

Bukhari 3.43.648:

‘We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar [in Medina], we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back.

In conclusion, hitting wives is enshrined in the Koran and all the major schools agree on it but what they differ is what is meant by "lightly".

That is one position of the Shafi'i school that there is a permissibility to discipline but Imam Shafii wrote himself in his Kitab Ul-Umm that the husband should not beat his wife.

“…we choose what the Messenger of Allah chose himself, and we prefer that the husband does not beat his wife when she goes too far against him in her words and similar things…” (Kitab Al-Umm [Edited by Muhammed Zuhri al-Najjar. Cairo – Maktabat al-Kulliyyat al-Ashariyya, 1381/1961], by Imam Al-Shafi’I, volume 5, page 194)

Also there are classical tafsirs that give another meaning of the verse that does not involve wife beating.

“If strife ensues between a man and wife, HE SHOULD SEEK COUNSEL from the righteous men and someone who is his peer in righteousness among the women so they can determine which one of the two is in the wrong (and help them correct it).” (Jalal al-din as-Suyuţi, Al-durar al-manthur fi tafsir bi’l ma’thur)

“What is meant here is to encourage them to correct themselves in stages and with KINDNESS. But if the matter is settled by admonishing then ONE SHOULD NOT BEAT HER (with a stick or the hand) BECAUSE THE VERSE IMPLIES the conduct of engaging in sexual relations.” (Abu l-Qasim Abdu l-Karim al-Qushayri, Laṭa’if al-isharat bi tafsir al-Qur’an)

Other schools like the Hanafis and Malikis prohibit a husband beating his wife and is legal cause to have the marriage annulled and compensation given to the abused wife.

“If the husband was in fact abusive, under the Maliki school in North Africa and Andalusia judges could TERMINATE THE MARRIAGE AND AWARD THE WIFE COMPENSATION. If the wife’s behavior was unbearable, the husband could receive a divorce by judicial decree. (27. Fierro, 324-33) … a famous tenth-century Hanafi jurist in Rayy (now absorbed into modern-day Tehran) wrote that it is the judge’s, responsibility to PREVENT A HUSBAND FROM ABUSING HIS WIFE, both by assigning the wife to live in the house of a trustworthy neighbor and by requiring compensation from the husband for any injury she suffered. Traveling in the fourteenth century through Mardin, near the contemporary Turkey-Syria border, Ibn Battuta recounts how the city’s chief judge had been approached by a woman COMPLAINING THAT HER HUSBAND HAD BEATEN HER. The court had closed for the day, but the judge accompanied the woman to the couple’s home and calmly spoke with the mortified husband in the presence of a crowd of prying neighbors, instructing him to put his affairs in order and GIVE HIS WIFE SATISFACTION. Despite the limitations that the empire’s official Hanafi school placed on judges in such matters, Ottoman court records suggest a similar receptiveness to wives seeking assistance. The influential sixteenth-century chief of the Ottoman religious establishment, Ebusu’ud Efendi, issued a fatwa that a judge was permitted to use any means possible TO PREVENT A HUSBAND FROM HURTING HIS WIFE. A leading Shariah consultant (mufti) to the courts in seventeenth-century Ottoman Palestine issued a fatwa that a husband who had knocked out three of his wife’s teeth HAD TO PAY THE SET COMPENSATION SUM OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY GOLD COINS. A series of cases from Shariah courts in and around Aleppo in the late 1600s and early 1700s demonstrated another phenomenon: women who had stipulated in their marriage contracts that if their husbands ever struck them THEY WOULD BE DIVORCED IMMEDIATELY, keeping their dower payment and with the husband responsible for spousal maintenance. (28. Elyse Semerdjian, of the Straight Path, 138-44.) Ottoman Shariah courts could end up extending their jurisdiction into the non-Muslim minorities in the empire. In 1529, the Ottoman Shariah court in a Greek town heard the complaint of a Christian family whose daughter had been beaten to death by her husband, ultimately awarding them her wergild amount. (29. Mathieu Tillier, ‘Women before the Qadi Under The Abbasids,’ 284; Ibn Battuta, Travels, 2:354-55; Judith Tucker, In the House of the Law, 66; Yvonne Seng, ‘Invisible Women: Residents of early Sixteenth-Century Istanbul,’ 250.) Shariah courts that continued under colonial rule and others that continue to function today have taken a similar approach. Women who come before the judge with complaints of abuse and evidence to prove it receive compensation for their injuries and, should they wish, judicially declared divorces and full maintenance rights. If a woman has no witnesses or other evidence that abuse has occurred, the judge might still house her with a neighbor temporarily. Shariah court records from Zanzibar between 1900 and 1950 show that judges would refuse to dissolve the marriages of wives who claimed their husbands abused them but could provide no witnesses, from among the neighbors or family, or other evidence to that effect. If there were any witnesses, the judges immediately housed the wife with a reliable neighbor, dissolved the marriage and fined the husband. (30. Elke E. Stokreiter, Child Marriage and Domestic Violence: Islamic and Colonial Discourses on Gender Relations and female Status in Zanzibar, 1900-1959s, in Domestic Violence and the Law in Colonial and Postcolonial Africa, ed. Emily S. Burrill, et al., 138, 143-44.) In French West Africa in 1911, courts in Kita and Jenne (both in present-day Mali) GRANTED DIVORCES TO NUMEROUS WOMEN WHO CLAIMED THEIR HUSBANDS HAD BEATEN THEM and either brought witnesses to corroborate this or when the husband admitted it. The courts usually AWARDED THE WIFE COMPENSATION FROM THE HUSBAND, DISSOLVED THE MARRIAGE and allowed the wife to keep her dower gift. One case records the husband explaining to the judge why his wife deserved a beating. The court ignored him since, by dint of requiring legal remedy, his actions had exceeded his rights to discipline her.” (31. Emily Burrill and Richard Roberts, Domestic Violence, Colonial Courts, and the End of Slavery in French Soudan, 1905-12, in Burril., et al., 45-46.) A case from Casablanca in 1917 shows how the classical principles of Shariah procedure were still active. If neighbors claimed they heard a wife screaming but saw nothing (i.e., they could provide no evidence of abuse), THE JUDGE WOULD STILL PUNISH THE HUSBAND. In the Maliki school it was reasoned that, if the husband had not sought help from anyone when his wife was screaming, it could be assumed that he had been responsible for her distress.” (32. Fierro, 336)(Misquoting Muhammad – The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy [Oneworld Publications, 2014], by Jonathan A. C. Brown, page 282 – 284)

The scholars base their opinions on this hadith where a woman came to the Prophet to complain about her abusive husband where he afterwards unilaterally cancelled the marriage. The ones who say that it's permissible to beat your wife can find no real life example in the life of the Prophet.

“Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Habibah daughter of Sahl was the wife of Thabit ibn Qays Shimmas He beat her and broke some of her part. So SHE CAME TO THE PROPHET AFTER MORNING, AND COMPLAINED TO HIM AGAINST HER HUSBAND. The Prophet called on Thabit ibn Qays and said (to him): Take a part of her property AND SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM HER. He asked: Is that right, Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: I have given her two gardens of mine as a dower, and they are already in her possession. The Prophet said: Take them and SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM HER.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 12, Hadith 2220 Eng. Tran.)

If you want some more info you can read this https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/02/03/a-historical-analysis-of-the-beat-verse-quran-434/

 

[AussieHustler]

merka

If Shafie had that viewpoint, then why do his followers preach the adherents the opposite? Does it make sense? Most scholars preach "darb" as a last resort. It is enshrined in the Koran and hadiths. Modern Muslims like you are embarrassed by it and resort to revise and re-interpret it. It is good to admit that the Islamic literature requires to be reformed, isn't that what Ayan Hersi has recently been advocating?

Did these Sheikhs got all wrong?






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msPb3dP2Ff4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_HHZvt31U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnMuARdZvA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js9PRsHtzSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyqWjeoyZrE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kuLtNOtD3Y

How could all these sheikhs above from different Islamic sects misinterpret it?

 

[Cognitivedissonance]

The overwhelming majority of the supporters of this group are young and educated Muslims and they are condoning violence against women. When will they be banned in Australia?

When the aboriginal Australians are given their land back and the Europeans go back to their lands.

 

[Cognitivedissonance]

These es have a submissive and a spanking fetish and their book/God telling them it's "okay" turns them on even more

She's in doggy and she yells "Allahu Akbar" while Abu Hamaz is beating her while reading that verse

#Kinky #MuslimsAreFreaks

Isn't your mother Muslim how about your grandmother isnt she a Muslim so you mean to tell me that's how they get down

 

[Rorschach]

These es have a submissive and a spanking fetish and their book/God telling them it's "okay" turns them on even more

She's in doggy and she yells "Allahu Akbar" while Abu Hamaz is beating her while reading that verse

#Kinky #MuslimsAreFreaks

You go too far with your edge khaniiskatahay wasee.

 

[OmarLittle]

You go too far with your edge khaniiskatahay wasee.

 

[AussieHustler]

When the aboriginal Australians are given their land back and the Europeans go back to their lands.

Cognitive

This group has been banned for much of Europe including Great Britain and they believe in the Sharia-sation of the Western world. I can't understand why successive Australian governments fail to ban it. Given that australia becomes a Sharia compliant state, how will they treat the indigenous people who believe in their ancient religion of "Dreamings"? Does ISIS' treatment of the Yaziidi minority ring a bell? Please don't derail the topic at hand, it's about 'Islam & family violence'. Thanks in advance.

 

[Cognitivedissonance]

Cognitive

This group has been banned for much of Europe including Great Britain and they believe in the Sharia-sation of the Western world. How would they treat the indigenous people who believe in their ancient religion of "Dreamings"? Does ISIS' treatment of the Yaziidi minority ring a bell? Please don't derail the topic at hand, it's about 'Islam & family violence'. Thanks in advance.

Australia was created on the blood of the indigenous people just look at their plight, they're put in ghettos bombarded with alcohol and all sorts of drugs and you're concerned about a little group there's more pressing issues.

Free the aboriginal Australians and return their land to them Europeans should go back to their own lands.

You're talking about what you view as a radical Islamic group trying to occupy Australia implement their shariah law, if you haven't noticed Australia is already occupied by colonialist Europeans.

 

[AussieHustler]

Australia was created on the blood of the indigenous people just look at their plight, they're put in ghettos bombarded with alcohol and all sorts of drugs and you're concerned about a little group there's more pressing issues.

Free the aboriginal Australians and return their land to them Europeans should go back to their own lands.

You're talking about what you view as a radical Islamic group trying to occupy Australia implement their shariah law, if you haven't noticed Australia is already occupied by colonialist Europeans.

Cognitive

That history based on facts you presented is noted but, please save it for another thread.

 

[Cognitivedissonance]

Cognitive

That history based on facts you presented is noted but, please save it for another thread.

I rather you call me dissonance

 

[random12345]

Another mistranslation. If you read the hadith in arabic you'd know that the word used was to push away and that she felt pain as in sadness

Aisha (RA) also reported that the Prophet (SAW) never hit anyone, let alone women.

Aisha said: “Allaah’s Messenger (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand ever, except when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman.” [Recorded In Ibn Majah. Al-Albani graded it Sahih.]

Aisha reports: ”Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did not hit Anything with his hands, besides the time when he made Jihaad in the Path of Allah. He did not hit a servant nor a woman (wife, girl etc.)”. [Shamaail‐e‐Tirmidhi (331) Hadith Number 6.]

‘Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: Messenger of Allah (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand neither a servant nor a woman but of course, he did fight in the Cause of Allah. He never took revenge upon anyone for the wrong done to him, but of course, he exacted retribution for the sake of Allah in case the Injunctions of Allah about unlawful acts were violated. [Muslim Arabic/English book reference : Book 1, Hadith 644]

Did you get that from wikiislam?

Fitna means a test or being tested. It can be used in many different situations.


So you came up with your conclusion by looking at websites. How do you know the information you got came from qualified people?

I wonder if you have the same standards to researching scientific papers as you do studying Islam.

Amazing you all end up going back to the stop making assumptions about me act. You were just talking about low these women's IQs were when most likely your relatives believe in the same thing.

Too bad that's all you seem to get out of it. God guides who He wills and sends astray who He wills

It's never too late to have a change in viewpoint.

Westernised Somalis have begun listening to Europeans about Islam

 

[AussieHustler]

I rather you call me dissonance

Waa ballan dissonance.

 

[Cognitivedissonance]

Waa ballan dissonance.

Saas ba lagaa rabaa wiil fiican ba tahay shaxshax

 

[Sakandari]

The Christian movement that tells husbands to SPANK their wives ‘to correct misbehavior’.

Should I start a stupid thread about this too ?

 

[Sharkman-Demon]

Stupid arabs ruining the name of Islam

It's their religion you fool, you're just an Abeed(Slave) that's dumb enough to still follow it.

 

[anonymous34]

Allah let my man try to hit me

 

[random12345]

It's their religion you fool, you're just an Abeed(Slave) that's dumb enough to still follow it.

Nope. Arabs had their time leading Islam in the 7th century. Was Salahudiin Arab? Were the Ayubids Arab? Different figures of different ethnicity lead our armies at different times in history.