UAE court says ‘wife beating is permissible’ so as long the husband doesn’t ‘leave marks’:
The judgment was made in the case of a man who slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife.
The wife suffered injuries to her lower lip and teeth, and the daughter had bruises on her right hand and right knee. The court ruled that the bruises were evidence that the father had abused his Sharia right.
According to Islamic law, a man has the “right to discipline” his wife and children, which can include beating them after he has exhausted two other options: admonition and then abstaining from sleeping with his wife. Although scholars differ in their definition of “beating”, all agree it must not be severe.
In the case of the wife, it was the degree of severity that put the man in breach of the law. The daughter, however, was 23, and therefore too old to be disciplined by her father.
He claimed he did not mean to harm either of them, and had hit his wife by mistake while trying to discipline his daughter.
Sharjah Court of First Instance fined the father Dh500 for abuse. The decision was upheld by the Sharjah Court of Appeals on February 14. He appealed against the verdict at the Federal Supreme Court.
“Although the [law] permits the husband to use his right [to discipline], he has to abide by the limits of this right,” wrote Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri in a ruling issued this month and released in a court document yesterday.
Crabby, 
shams, and 3 others are discussing. 
Pretty Pink Ponies, and 1 other are discussing. 
Crabby 11:44 am on October 21, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Why does God allow this dispensation to beat your wife (if you fear her nushuz)?
Arwi 12:38 pm on October 21, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There are varied views on what God allows, but what the UAE allows is a less disquietening subject.
Crabby 8:40 pm on October 21, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There are always varied views, and there is an acceptable range of opinions permitting this marital disciplining. Why have an allowance for it at all rather than defaulting back fully to prohibit any “beating” of one’s wife?
shams 6:50 am on October 22, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
prolly prohibiting the beating of any human would be preferable. this is a hangover from the EEA (environment of evolutionary advantage) and biological sexual dimorphism….
faithful quranic exegesis would prevent wife beating as it prevents unjust beating and harm of all innocents.
Remember, brother crabby, al-Islam is a process.
shams 6:51 am on October 22, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
environment of evolutionary ADAPTATION
sry, early here.
Crabby 6:08 pm on October 22, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That helped make sense of it. Thanks..
Naughty children are still not exempted from being beaten up though. Kidding… wait.. half-kidding only.
Arwi 12:00 pm on October 23, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Why have an allowance for it at all rather than defaulting back fully to prohibit any “beating” of one’s wife?
Why do you think?
Biological dimorphism and EEA are not very pious explanations.
Crabby 7:16 pm on October 24, 2010 Permalink
What shams said
Other than that, there is nothing original from me..
Got an interesting old blog post from Yursil’s.
If you have a further explanation for an even more well rounded view, that’ll help lots!
thabet 3:48 am on October 22, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
You should have seen the leader in the Abu Dhabi English-language paper, The National.
Crabby 6:16 pm on October 22, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice editorial, that gave a better perspective regarding the court case. But there isn’t anything new that university professors and traditionalist scholars has been saying for years, mainly, it’s a significant restriction against a prevailing male violence. How about developing further to not lay any kind of a handful on your wife no matter what circumstances or will that be impossible since the “beating” texts remains there…
Bobby: How dare she not love you, two slaps and she’ll be loving you all over.
Suri: Hey don’t you dare! You’ll slap my wife?!
Bobby: No, no, not me, you will.
Suri: Never! The day I raise this hand on her.. you cut this hand with your scissors, all of it.
Arwi 10:08 pm on October 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I don’t see how Yursil’s post answers your question. The post discusses limits to the prerogative of violence, it does not answer why God permits the dispensation of violence at all.
Saying God permits men to use the pimp hand because men are bigger and used to such privileges in their original evolutionary environment, makes God’s edicts less than impartial or eternal, for one thing.
shams 11:03 am on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
you just dont get the Divine Beloved, brother Arwi.
Al-lah is flow…the cause of everything, both da’ and dawa.….the disease and the cure.
Crabby 6:38 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That is exactly the opinion of Maududi, the somewhat contemporary Islamic thinker, putting forward the old qawaamoon argument and echoing classical majority interpretation. It is, what left you wanting, a pious explanation.
Why do you think so?
Crabby 6:42 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Why do you think so.. as in my original question.
Arwi 7:06 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That is exactly the opinion of Maududi, the somewhat contemporary Islamic thinker, putting forward the old qawaamoon argument and echoing classical majority interpretation.
Really, Maududi argued that God’s edicts are a result of evolution? That would be interesting, where does he say this?
My understanding of the classical position is that God set some over others, not that biological dimorphism set some over others and God co-signed until material culture changed sufficiently that God could be interpreted as having said something else all along.
Crabby 9:53 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What Matt said.
In Maududi’s tafsir: Men are superior to women in the sense that they have been endowed with certain natural qualities and powers that have not been given to women or have been given in a less degree, and not in the sense that they are above them in honor and excellence. Man has been made qawam (governor) of the family because of his natural qualities and woman has been made his dependent for her own safety and protection because of her natural drawbacks.
That difference in sexes sounds like sexual dimorphism where it also relates to ability, and the social relationship that results, adapting on interaction from its environment sounds like human EEA.
Some scholars say if a man can’t perform his basic obligation to a woman like financially maintaining her, he can’t be regarded to have that qawam status. That is a 180 over the original ruling. And in societies where women could be independant (despite her assumed natural drawbacks) reaching a critical mass… things changed.
Arwi 11:06 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That difference in sexes sounds like sexual dimorphism where it also relates to ability
So you are satisfied that the answer to your original question was that God permits men to lay down the smackdown because women were lesser beings until circa 1975? OK. I don’t agree with your interpretation of Maududi but it seems like you have found an answer that satisfies you.
Crabby 12:53 am on October 26, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That’s what I followed up to. But I’d really honestly like to hear yours. I’ve asked why four times so far, I think only shams answered me directly which led me to that. Your input was…
and
Can you help flesh out your opinion fully why the dispensation for a “beating”?
Crabby 5:13 pm on October 31, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hello Arwi? I hope you are doing well and have the spare time still to continue replying here…
Matt 8:30 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Well, if God is the cause of all and the reason behind everything, then some “god” setting some above others and a modern understanding of evolution setting some above others really amounts to the same thing.
Arwi 9:01 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Evolution, in its modern understanding, is amoral and directionless while God, in the classical understanding, is concerned with morality, sends prophets to tell people how to act and disapproves of any number of practices that humans have evolved into committing. If you believe in God as the reason behind everything, than biological dimorphism doesn’t answer “Crabby”‘s original question, it just shifts the goalpost to why does God think biological dimorphism is a ground for moral order? You can’t answer that with an appeal to evolution.
shams 9:43 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
wallah…i dont know how else to say this…..in the spacetimeslice of the EEA biological dimorphism was just and righteous….because teh XX needed protectection….but in modern times….the Qur’an provides all remedy….because the uncreated, revealed Qur’an is outside spacetime.
it is the flow. ….no beginning, no end…..the flow is da‘ and dawa, simultaneously the disease and the cure.
Arwi 11:15 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
because teh XX needed protectection
You would have to demonstrate how men having the right to beat their wives protects women, and also why modernity made that sort of protective beating unnecessary.
shams 5:55 am on October 26, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
huh?
when humans lived in caves and were huntergatherers men hunted and protected the breeders. the breeders were like children and might have to be disciplined to keep them safe, indeed like children that might harm themselves. modernity, and reproductive freedom, largely equalized the sexes, giving women autonomy. but if one reads the Qur’an (as we are instructed to do), the old discipline of the EEA is not required….it has become unjust.
this is obvious…..al-Islam is a process.
shams 10:11 am on October 27, 2010 Permalink
modernity made the environment safer.
that wasnt clear i guess.
shams 9:46 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
brother Arwi, you are anthropomophizing the Real.
shams 9:48 pm on October 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Al-lah is unknown and unknowable….you attribute human traits to the Real.
Instead you should polish the mirror.
Matt 11:45 am on October 26, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think you are right about the classical justification for wife-beating, Shams. But, I think it is hard to see the Qur’an advocating women’s autonomy per se… the more prominent themes seem to be the interconnectedness and the interdependence of all things, and the dangers of following one’s own whims.
shams 6:08 am on October 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
subanallah, brother matt….you are starting to get it.
justice is good for all things, and all things are interconnected and interdependent. wahdat al wujud.
what is good for your wife is good for you…what is good for the environment is good for humans…. da’ and dawa.
Chaney Moore 12:34 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I am working on developing a blog like religion Talk Islam. I still have a a long way to go, and surely don’t yet get the traffic you appear to have. If you find the time, please give me some suggestions on http://www.folkd.com/user/darelleael as I know it wants a tune up. Nice site, sincerely, Chaney Moore