IMRA reports that Sunni Islam's highest judge took an interesting approach to deal with domestic violence.
Great. This is how to stop domestic violence? Permit a gun for a gun, razor for razor? So, will this cultural solution apply in larger situations? Consider the current fracas with Syria. Or, Iran's intentions with Israel, once they get their bomb. With that thought firmly in mind, consider President Obama going off to talk with his counterparts in Tehran. I imagine a variation of the Punch and Judy show.+++JORDAN TIMES 28 Oct.'o8:"Wife has right to beat husband -fatwa",Agence France Press
CAIRO (AFP) - Sunni Islam's highest authority has approved a woman's right to fight back if her husband uses violence against her, Egypt's Al Masry Al Youm newspaper reported on Monday. The declaration by Sheikh Abdul Hamid Al Atrash, who heads Al Azhar University's committee for fatwas or religious rulings, comes after similar rulings by religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. "A wife has the legitimate right to hit her husband in order to defend herself," Atrash was quoted as saying. "Everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether they are a man or a woman... because all human beings are equal before God," he said. Over the last few days, Saudi Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al Abyakan stressed the fact that a wife should resort to "the same kind of violence" as her husband used against her, whether it be with a leather strap or a wire cable, the paper said. Turkish Sheikh Fathallah Julun went one step further and ruled that a woman should return the violence with interest. "She should give back two blows for each one received," the paper quoted him as saying.
It is with interest that Haaretz carries a story that Sarkozy views Obama's approach to Iran as naive. Just four years ago, Democrats were very worried what the French might think of US foreign policy. Will the Obama camp will respond with the appropriate cultural quid pro quo using the Turkish method?
Posts
3 comments:
Well, "now she can hit back" is a lot better way to stop domestic violence than "sit back and take it" is, and as far as I understand it that was the situation pro ante.
I can't imagine that "don't hit your wife, ever, at all" would be very effective in stopping people who want to - nor is it going to be easy to manage under Islamic law, as to my knowledge it's expressly permitted in the Koran or at very least the Hadith.
Those decisions are thus a lot better than the possible alternatives.
Actually, I had in mind a Fatwa that might read, "Don't hit your wife--ever" as more appropriate that simply giving her permission to hit back. It might go along with a similar dictum "Don't kill your daughter for going out with someone you don't like."
Truth be told, I'm not a situational ethics kind of guy.
However, I am hardpressed to think of one State, or European country for that matter, where it is permissible, much less acceptible for a husband to thrash his wife. Yes, there are laws on the books of most modern nation states against assault and battery; and that these laws have variable rates of deterrence of such crimes. This is a continual problem for which there are courts to determine damages and penalties.
Be that as it may, the underlying situation in such societies (that require such a ruling)--that a man could beat his wife, or kill her, to preserve his honor is pretty outrageous. To bolster it on some form of situational ethics, itself, is equally outrageous.
To remedy this situation by allowing the victim to fight back is absurd at best. What happens when a wife actually does this? Can we really expect such a society to accept a woman fighting back? We already know how such societies react when their historical pariah classes fight back. It would only increase the loss of honor of the male.
Post a Comment