Islamic Court rules men can beat their wives and children :)

UAE high court rules men can beat wives, young children if there are no visible marks

By Ethan Sacks
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Monday, October 18th 2010, 8:59 AM

It's perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife and young children in the United Arab Emirates, as long as the assault leaves no physical marks, the country's highest court ruled.
Citing Islamic law, the Federal Supreme Court made the decision earlier this month in its ruling on a case of a man who slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife, Abu Dhabi's The National reported Monday.
The wife sustained injuries to her lower lip and teeth and the 23-year-old daughter suffered bruises on her hand and knee from the beating. The court ruled against the defendant, saying he crossed the line suggested by Sharia Law, because his daughter was no longer a minor and his wife had visible injuries.
But in the process, Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri stated that there are conditions when domestic violence is acceptable.
"Although the [law] permits the husband to use his right [to discipline], he has to abide by the limits of this right," al Hajeri wrote in a ruling released in a court document Sunday.
"If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment."
Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, the head of Sharia Studies at UAE University and Baghdad University, told the National that beating one's wife is at times necessary to preserve family bonds.
"If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police," Dr al Kubaisi told the newspaper. "But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/10/18/2010-10-18_uae_high_court_rules_men_can_beat_wives_young_children_if_there_are_no_visible_m.html

This is just one story, it's appeared in many other news outlets. The bold parts made me LoL.

My wife is not going to like this.

i'm down with the ruling. some times corporal punishment is the way to go.

notice there is a difference of what is considered a beating and punishment.

wolfwood

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My wife is not going to like this.

Tell her it's the law; she doesn't want to be an outlaw, does she.

Originally posted by King Castle
i'm down with the ruling. some times corporal punishment is the way to go.

notice there is a difference of what is considered a beating and punishment.

wolfwood

ummm, moreso than the "beating" aspect, the problem is much more that men are considered to have absolute authority over their wives, such that they would administer "punishments"

two free and equal individual adults do not have that authority over eachother

no one has the authority over another person that i do agree, especially when it comes to the law and judgment over a man or woman.

http://www.precepts.org/woe.html

but, i do believe in repercussions when a person screws some one over. that doesnt mean i would approve of slapping my wife or child b/c they argue with me. i wouldnt hit my daughter once she reached a certain age.

but, if my significant other cheated on me or screwed me over you best believe she would be praying for me just to slap her out of anger.

😮‍💨 😈

Originally posted by Robtard
Tell her it's the law; she doesn't want to be an outlaw, does she.

Hmmmm You don't know my wife. 😂

Originally posted by King Castle
no one has the authority over another person that i do agree, especially when it comes to the law and judgment over a man or woman.

http://www.precepts.org/woe.html

but, i do believe in repercussions when a person screws some one over. that doesnt mean i would approve of slapping my wife or child b/c they argue with me. i wouldnt hit my daughter once she reached a certain age.

but, if my significant other cheated on me or screwed me over you best believe she would be praying for me just to slap her out of anger.

😮‍💨 😈

weird... such selfish and possessive ideas, at least imho, were better left in the jungle from before we became civilized creatures

if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

more often then not we as humans as a whole dont need Laws to govern our behavior we do it every day ourselves.

i think ppl should be free to rule themselves and people know when they are stepping out of line and repercussions from one another is all the incentive one needs to stay inline.

more often then not modern laws help protect unethical/ill moral behavior of ppl from getting what they truly deserve. ppl now hide behind the law to protect them from consequences of their sh#$ baggish behavior.

I'm fine with the law as long as the Woman is allowed to attempt to defend herself. That way, at the very least if she gets beaten, it's not a matter of civil rights and one adult having authority over another, but, a matter of her simply not being a better fighter.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm fine with the law as long as the Woman is allowed to attempt to defend herself. That way, at the very least if she gets beaten, it's not a matter of civil rights and one adult having authority over another, but, a matter of her simply not being a better fighter.

by the way i have lost to two of my girlfriend's in wrastlin when we fought.

i was of course handicapped. she was pissed and tryin to hurt me while i was tryin to enjoy the moment. 😮‍💨

no shame in losin to a woman.

Originally posted by King Castle
if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

trust me on this, no we wouldn't

Originally posted by King Castle
if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

Maybe if we turn civilization back a thousand years. Unfortunately we live in the real world, things are interconnected enough that you really can't judge how harmful any but the simplest actions may be without advice.

And honestly we let this happen anyway, you can live your whole life and have very little interaction with the law except where it relates to money. The police aren't every where at once enforcing every law for everyone all the time.

Originally posted by King Castle
i think ppl should be free to rule themselves and people know when they are stepping out of line and repercussions from one another is all the incentive one needs to stay inline.

That's stupid. You now still have laws except that there's no way anybody can learn what they are until they break them. But hey at least they're not called laws anymore.

On the other hand I see the appeal of this system. I could just shoot people like you and be done with it.

Originally posted by King Castle
more often then not modern laws help protect unethical/ill moral behavior of ppl from getting what they truly deserve. ppl now hide behind the law to protect them from consequences of their sh#$ baggish behavior.

In the US it's generally the plea bargain system that lets people walk away from their crimes not the law.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm fine with the law as long as the Woman is allowed to attempt to defend herself. That way, at the very least if she gets beaten, it's not a matter of civil rights and one adult having authority over another, but, a matter of her simply not being a better fighter.

Sharia law gives no modern rights to women. They'll get beaten or otherwise punished for fighting back.

Originally posted by King Castle
if people simply abided within their own moral compass we would be fine.

I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sharia law gives no modern rights to women. They'll get beaten or otherwise punished for fighting back.

Then I do not agree with this policy. In fact, if any vicious beatings of women are to be commenced, I demand that said women are trained in Krav Maga first.

Then the beating can begin.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.

Perhaps KC thinks that they knew what was right but did what was wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.

i'll have to rephrase my wording. i'll get back to you.

@ bardock

kinda, sort of.

wanting, believing in something and acting on it is two different things.

i guess it comes down to having a combination of ethics and morality to temper both sides.

i like how singapore implements laws, i also like how the military Law keeps ppl in place for the most part it reduces crime rates per patum compared to the civilian standard and also reduces the ability to compromise punishment, its usually set. its strict but its fair

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe if we turn civilization back a thousand years. Unfortunately we live in the real world, things are interconnected enough that you really can't judge how harmful any but the simplest actions may be without advice.

I don't even think it is a matter of time period

Studies find pretty constantly that it is people who consider themselves most moral or honest that are also among the most willing to act in socially destructive ways.

It is because our actions are goverened, to a large part, by processes that inform our consciousness, not the other way around. Since we believe we are moral, we are willing to do these actions, processed unconsciously, and then immedietly see why they fall in line with our own ideas of morality.

Its like, you can lie 50 times a day, and still feel like you are honest, largely because you will "excuse away" your behaviour under different contexts, each single example of a lie (exemplar) thus being explained to support your idea of being honest (schema).

We aren't as forgiving to others though, as we rarely take social circumstance into the equation when determining why people act the way they do. "That politician lied to us" is never really followed by an indepth anaylsys of the political system, economics, etc, and even if they are, these considerations rarely overcome our desire to assume static personality qualities of people, as opposed to situational qualities... god, if that makes sense...

Allahu Ackbar!

(by the way: Religion Forum?)