Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives

[bob x]

Fatima and Ali's sons were the "Hussein and Hassan" whose assassinations made the Sunnite/Shi'ite schism irreconcilable, is that right?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Fatima and Ali's sons were the "Hussein and Hassan" whose assassinations made the Sunnite/Shi'ite schism irreconcilable, is that right?

Yes it was a long process but I think the split was irreconcilable long before Hussein's death.

Ali was the cousin of the Prophet Mohammad and the husband of Fatima (Mohammads daughter) (pbut). When the Prophet died some believed that Ali should have been the Caliph and that all Caliphs should come from the bloodline of the Prophet. However Ali did not take the Caliphate until after the assassination of the third Caliph.

Aisha (wife of the Prophet) went to war with Ali, claiming he was not trying to bring the killer(s) of Uthman to justice (the suggestion being Ali had a hand in the assassination). This was the Battle of the Camel and Ali defeated Aisha, leading to her withdrawal from public life.

Enter Mu'awiya Ummayad, governor of Damascus and cousin of the assassinated Uthman. He refused to recognise Ali as Caliph until the killers of Uthman were brought to justice. This led to the Battle of Suffin, where Mu'awiya's soldiers stuck verses of the Quran to the end of their spears, so Ali's supporters refused to fight (they were probably more pious and less political than Mu'awiya's men). Ali then had to find a compromise with Mu'awiya, which so offednde his men that Ali was killed by one of his own supporters for betraying them.

Mu'awiya then declared himself Caliph and Hassan (the older of Ali's sons) accepted a pension for not persuing his claim to the caliphate. Hassan died within a year of this agreement, with some reports suggesting he was poisoned.

Ali's younger son Hussein agreed to wait until Mu'awiya died before taking the caliphate. However upon Mu'awiya's death his son, Yazid, declared himself Caliph. Hussein took his followers to war but was vastly outnumbered and was killed during the Battle of Karbala.

Hussein had an infant son, also called Ali, so the bloodline continued and the Shia have always held this bloodline as the rightful caliphate.

When you consider the number of political assassinations (including those in 754) that took place, it is doubtful that the initial split could ever have been healed.

On a different note:

I need to look up whether this is considered authentic but I found it today and it adds something to the discussion about polygamy:

Muhammad also re-iterated his affection for Fatimah when he was made aware that Ali had proposed to a daughter of Abu Jahl. From the pulpit Muhammad pronounced, "she is indeed a part of me" and that Ali would have to first divorce Fatimah before the marriage could go ahead.

For me, if authentic, this would suggest that the Prophet was actually against un-necessary polygamous marriages. When we look at the list of the Prophets marriages we can see that almost all were for political reasons and with women in desperate need. Ali was a very poor man, so a polygamous marriage would have caused more hardship for his family.

[Muslimwoman]

This is worth a watch, it explains the arabic words used regarding the 'wife beating matter'.

YouTube - Islam & Wife Beating

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

It is a mans natural place and instinct to take care of women. Are you aware of how many countries do not have any social security system? Governments do not take care of anyone, society does through a system of taxation. When the majority of your population are poor who do you tax adequately to support the majority?

I am aware of how many countries don't have it, and how many countries have social security that doesn't work. But that's no reason not to try.

The rich leaders in the Middle East could take care of their own people, could get some kind of other government system rolling so they wouldn't be living in extremely poor conditions, but they won't, and instead exploit them and the money keeps building in the treasury. I'm not saying this is the fault of Islam, but people making stupid decisions, just like is done in the West.

I don't see the King of Saudi Arabia wretching poor Muslims out of bad conditions. I don't know if this makes his society clearly unIslamic or it's just an exception.

I agree that it is man's natural place and instinct, but man clearly isn't living up to his expectations, and doesn't take care of all women.

No it's not, Muslim women can choose to work, marry or marry as a second wife. In Islam if I work my husband cannot use a single pound of my salary to pay for our life, he must provide everything and it is my choice if I help out with bills. I would hardly call that demeaning.

I'm not calling those choices demeaning, because clearly they are to be had in richer socieities, but in poor societies, women do not have those choices all the time, and that IS demeaning to them. I'm saying that they should have the choice.

Why is it not reliable? Many women are in very happy polygamous marriages. So who are we to judge that they are wrong or unhappy or being demeaned?

It's not reliable because it doesn't take care of all women. Not whether or not they are happy or sad or feel they are demeaned. There are women who cannot find a spouse, who cannot work, who aren't supported by their relatives, and those women are screwed in a society that uses polygamy as a safety net. That's what I mean.

No, not at all. People are just encouraged to have children, as Moses encouraged people to go out and populate the world.

Oh good. I was about to say " that's rrrrreally harsh".

Egypt has not outlawed it and less than 3% still choose to live this way and every year less people choose to do it.

And thank God for that.

What do you mean advance their societies? That makes it sound like they are backward because some people choose a way of life you object to. Do you prefer the Western model of marital affairs or sleepng around?

By "advance their societies" I mean to move forward to the point where people aren't constantly worrying about basic needs; shelter, food, water, employment.

Not to adopt Western ideals, helllllllll no. I'm not a fan of those, either.

It is a lot of happy people, very few end up in this situation without choosing to do so.

Or a lot of happy men...or really unhappy men. XD

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I don't see the King of Saudi Arabia wretching poor Muslims out of bad conditions. I don't know if this makes his society clearly unIslamic or it's just an exception.

I agree that it is man's natural place and instinct, but man clearly isn't living up to his expectations, and doesn't take care of all women.

I don't see the Saud family taking care of anyone but the Saud family. And I don't see where you can state matter of factly that "man" isn't living up to "his" expectations, when "woman" could be said to be failing at the same thing...

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I don't see the Saud family taking care of anyone but the Saud family. And I don't see where you can state matter of factly that "man" isn't living up to "his" expectations, when "woman" could be said to be failing at the same thing...

Technically they are both failing (man and woman), because if one fails, it brings the entire unit down with it. But in this narrowed context with the polygamist safety net, it is basically men failing the women they are supposed to be " caring " for.

I would expect the Saudi King to care about his people, but apparently that is too much to expect.

[Souloflight]

this is insane . LOL How To Beat Your Wife? Wow I feel very sorry for these poor women.

[greymare]

as discussed before it is unfortunate and these women do deserve our pity. however it happens across all levels of society and all populations. If you know its happening, interfere, butt in, do what you can to help . dont ignore it because it wont go away. it will only get worse.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I am aware of how many countries don't have it, and how many countries have social security that doesn't work. But that's no reason not to try.

Salam madeinrussia

Sorry have been away a while getting my new business up and running and making the move back to Egypt. I hope we can continue our discussion now, I am finding it very interesting.

I agree it is no reason not to try and some countries here are now trying but there is little chance of instant solutions and that of course does not solve the problems for women today.

Mobarak's opposition leader (before he was imprisoned ) had calculated that the revenue from the Suez Canal alone could provide a complete social security system in Egypt or be invested to produce a long term solution to poverty. Of course that means Mobarak would lose his billions and we can't have that can we. One problem is that Egypt are trying to climb out of this hole via economic growth alone, which is vastly increasing the gap between rich and poor and whilst Mobarak maintains martial law the people cannot vote in a better President. It's a bit of a pickle but yes the means of change are there, now we need a leader to bring that change (although how they are going to get into power I have no idea).

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I don't see the King of Saudi Arabia wretching poor Muslims out of bad conditions. I don't know if this makes his society clearly unIslamic or it's just an exception.

And you never will see it. The Saud family have no interest in Islam, they simply used it as a means to an end (their own power and wealth) and the Islamic system they chose to support was a radical sect. That said, the King is now trying to open his country up a bit but of course he created the monster and is now bound by it's limits.

That is the sad thing about the state of Islam today, so many people are spending their time declaring other Muslims 'non-Muslim' because they are in a different gang. Saudi scholars regularly declare all Muslims, other than themselves, to be non-Muslim and vice versa - makes you wonder why the Jihadists aren't all at war with each other!!

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I agree that it is man's natural place and instinct, but man clearly isn't living up to his expectations, and doesn't take care of all women.

Okay so how does man take care of all women in a society? Social Security was not introduced to the UK until 1911 and was only intended to take care of short term unemployment. It is due to become insolvent in 2040. Then what?

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I'm not calling those choices demeaning, because clearly they are to be had in richer socieities, but in poor societies, women do not have those choices all the time, and that IS demeaning to them. I'm saying that they should have the choice.

Can we agree that many women in the 'west' choose to enter into relationships with married men? They have no legal recourse or financial support if the relationship fails and they choose to share their bodies with a man they know is sleeping with another woman (his wife).

So why should it be demeaning for a woman to choose to enter a legal marriage with a man she knows is already married? Surely the only difference is legal protection for the second wife?

You talk about poor societies removing that choice - I live in Egypt and it doesn't get much poorer than here but only 3% of the population are in polygamous marriages and it is perfectly legal here. Why would that number be so small if being poor removed that choice?

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

It's not reliable because it doesn't take care of all women. Not whether or not they are happy or sad or feel they are demeaned. There are women who cannot find a spouse, who cannot work, who aren't supported by their relatives, and those women are screwed in a society that uses polygamy as a safety net. That's what I mean.

Again, what is your solution? As I say above the UK's solution is due to collapse in just 32 short years - how will we support single mothers then?

I know what you are saying, we should all live in a world where people take care of people but we don't, so practical, if unpalletable, solutions must be found.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

By "advance their societies" I mean to move forward to the point where people aren't constantly worrying about basic needs; shelter, food, water, employment.

Take the UK and Saudi - 2 very rich countries, both still have people living in cardboard boxes under bridges and the unemployment rates in UK have pushed the social security system to breaking point. So it seems the right solution has yet to be found to societies ills.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Not to adopt Western ideals, helllllllll no. I'm not a fan of those, either.

Here is the crux of the matter imo. As we sit in the west and are aghast at the idea of polygamous marriages, people here sit and are aghast that people are not imprisoned for having affairs. TV now shows western girls on nights out drunk as lords and flashing their boobs to the camera's, with captions like "these are the rights of western women". People here are far more practical and less emotional. Neither society has it right but each has what they feel are acceptable solutions, however one may last longer than the other - only time will tell.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Or a lot of happy men...or really unhappy men. XD

The latter me thinks. Education is the key. Keep women uneducated and tell them their role in life is to serve men and they grow up happily believing and doing it. Give them a tv set, bombard them with adverts and information and hey presto you have 4 demanding, nagging wives instead of 1

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I would expect the Saudi King to care about his people, but apparently that is too much to expect.

Gosh why on earth would you think that??

In 1932, following a long standing alliance with the radical Islamist Wahabbi sect and numerous wars to take control of the peninsular - the first king of saudi declared himself king and renamed the conqured area Saudi Arabia. He had 30 sons and the eldest took the crown - he also had 30 sons and started handing out plush government jobs like sweeties to his sons. The uncles got fed up and this led to the 1964 family coup. King Faisal won the toss and then declared the government and even local authorities were responsible to the king (he now had ultimate power - and of course wealth) so one of his nephews assassinated him in 1975. So it went on. In 1992 King Fahd really put the cat amongst the pigeons when he declared that the crown prince would no longer automatically take the throne on the death of a king. Virtually all the sons and grandsons hold very high ministerial offices so expect a lot of in fighting when this one pops his clogs.

It has always been a tribal feudal system (which relies solely on looking after your own and getting more power and wealth than the other tribes) and still is to this day (only now the family is so big they just fight amongst themselves).

Why on earth would this man care a jot about the people of Saudi?