The latest Jesus and Mo strip, called “discipline,” came with a note and a link:
It’s that Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham again.
An excerpt from the National Secular Society‘s report:
An Islamic charity issued regulatory “advice and guidance” after it promoted misogyny has since streamed a sermon saying men can ‘physically discipline’ wives who are ‘rebellious’.
Last month, Birmingham mosque Green Lane Masjid and Community Centre (GLMCC) live streamed a sermon in which Aqeel Mahmood [see video below[ said “discipline in the case of rebellion” is one of the “rights of the husband over the wife”.
He said: “The husband is a leader. He has his responsibilities. Physical discipline is a last resort on the condition that it doesn’t cause pain, injury, fear or humiliation”.
. . . Mahmood also said a husband has a “right” to “intimacy” with his wife and a wife must not leave the house without her husband’s permission. Mahmood is understood to be an imam at the centre.
Yes, a “last resort” to be used on “rebellious” women. Some “faith of peace”!
Here’s a short clip showing Mahmood’s interpretation of Islamic law:
My favourite part is “Physical discipline … that … doesn’t cause pain, injury, fear or humiliation.”
… to the husband?
Green Lane was not a million miles from where I went to school.
Years ago, I took a college course in Egyptian history. For one class, they brought in a woman (a professor of economics) who was a Muslim to deliver a lecture on Islam. A woman in the audience asked her about the verses in the Koran endorsing wife-beating. The lecturer reluctantly acknowledged that the verses were in there, but insisted that the Prophet (Peace be on him!) was only speaking of “symbolic” “taps.” Of course, that is not how they are not interpreted by countless Muslims worldwide.
It reminds me of how many Christians and Jews will insist that the Book of Genesis is “obviously” not meant to be taken literally, even though this would be news to billions of Christians and Jews down through history.
Yet another example of the conflict between Islam and Western values. In the US, a man can go to jail if he beats his wife. I presume this is true in the UK as well. Are we supposed to provide an exemption for Muslim men?
I recognize that in practice spousal abuse can be a complex problem, with some women (for understandable reasons) scared or unwilling to bring charges against the man. I’m sure it would be worse for Muslim women, as it could bring social estrangement and religious condemnation. But Western societies have to protect their citizens from abuse and cannot “respect” this Islamic tenet and permit it to be practiced.
Once again, where is the outrage from all the progressives? And I don’t mean their outrage at Western “Islamophobia”.
“Are we supposed to provide an exemption for Muslim men?”
In the UK, yes. It is called “multiculturalism” and “two-tier policing”.
I am not in favour of killing one’s abusive partner. But as a “last resort”?? Sauce, goose, gander.
If a muslim man comes to America and becomes a citizen of America, then he must abide by American laws. Period. End of discussion. If a muslim woman is beaten by her muslim husband, she must be protected by American Laws. To Hell And Back with all the “loopholes” that say we must honor Sharia law! NO MAN CAN BEAT A WOMAN AND GET AWAY WITH IT IN AMERICA. END OF EFFING DISCUSSION.
If a Muslim man comes to a country, even as a visitor, then he must abide by the laws of that country, whether he becomes a citizen or not. I’m sure you know that. I’m just putting a finer point on it. The distinction is important because my understanding from other reading is that many Green Card holders in America remain aliens for many years before they take out U.S. citizenship.*
If an alien assaulted his wife (or anyone else), that would be a good reason to revoke whatever permission he has to be in the country and deport him. In Canada, even lawful permanent residents are deported if they are convicted of a crime where the usual sentence is six months or more. That would be at the low end of possible sentences for assault causing bodily harm.
(* I suspect this is for tax reasons, to avoid being liable for U.S. income taxes if they return home or emigrate on to another country.)
From personal experience, it is actually easier than one is generally told (or as I had believed for too many years) for a US citizen resident overseas to become a “non-US person” for income tax purposes, and thus avoid almost all the tedious filing requirements (e.g. for every overseas bank account). This does critically depend on details of the resident’s country’s tax treaty with the US.
I seriously doubt that. People might believe that it is easier than it is, and maybe the authorities don‘t notice, but it is actually extremely difficult. I haven‘t been a U.S. citizen for almost 30 years, haven‘t lived in the U.S. since 1983, and while it is clear in my case that I am not liable for U.S. income tax at all, some financial institutions refuse to do business with people like me because the effort to actually be convinced that there is absolutely no danger that they could be accused of aiding and abettinfg something shady is so great that they would rather lose a customer.
The U.S. is unusual in that citizens are liable for U.S. tax, wherever they live and wherever their income comes from, although one can often deduct any tax paid elsewhere etc. Usually, it is based on where one‘s main residence is and/or where the money was earned.
I actually think that that is a good idea, though. Citizens have the benefits of citizenship and should pay taxes as a result, though it makes sense to be able to deduct income tax elsewhere from that tax burden. But deduct the amount of tax paid, as opposed to not having to tax income which has been taxed elsewhere (perhaps at a lower rate). I don‘t think that it is fair for people to retain the benefits of citizenship without contributing, such as rich people setting things up so that they are taxed only slightly in tax havens. If they don‘t like being taxed in their home country, fine: they can give up their citizenship.
By the same token, if people give up their citizenship, then they should no longer be liable for tax. I‘ve heard that some countries (maybe the U.S.) require some sort of exit tax for people who give up their citizenship, which seems unnecessary.
I’m very happy with my outcomes. Most well-off countries do have AML (Anti Money-Laundering) and other such regulations for their banks, but I have found these to be no more than a minor nuisance. YMMV.
I punishment cannot include pain, fear, injury or humiliation is a comfy cushion allowed?
As long as chapter 4, verse 34 is in their big book of goddy stuff and nonsense, they are going to continue to have problems with rational and decent people.
PS: note the intentional mistranslation in the first version listed.
PPS: The very fact of such intentional mistranslation shows the salubrious effects of secularism. Just as christians no longer burn witches, not because the biblical text has changed, but because secular values have encroached on its previous monopoly on morality and on ethical pronouncements, so too, can islam not avoid the influence of secularism any time it steps out of its middle-eastern ghetto.