Imam beats his wife brutally while quoting Quran's verses in Germany.
Hey Islamic women, quit Islam before you are thrashed to pulp.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/he-said-is-german-imam-recites-qurans-wife-beating-verse-while-beating-wife.html R.
Singh
He said it: Imam in Germany recites Qur'an's wife-beating verse while beating
wife
Yes, Qur'an 4:34 really does say "beat them." Perhaps if Muslim apologists --
professional and amateur -- and spokespeople spent less time trying to convince
Western audiences that the Qur'an doesn't really quite say what it says, and
focused that same level of effort instead on stopping their coreligionists'
alleged "misunderstandings" (including imams) and "cultural" misconduct, there
would be fewer stories like this for us to so rudely report on.
Of course, real progress would require a forthright acknowledgment of the
contents of the Qur'an. No more tap-dancing around "context" or playing the
"lost in translation" card. And no more trying to excuse the inexcusable.
Oh, and just for a touch of irony, what has the imam been lecturing about at the
Catholic university in Munich? Non-violence.
More on this story. "Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is
arrested for beating up his wife," by Alan Hall for the Daily Mail, December 2
(thanks to Ken):
A Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence and advises the German government on
interfaith issues has been arrested in Germany for beating up his wife.
Sheikh Abu Adam, 40, is now on remand in Munich while his wife, 31, is being
guarded by police.
She was allegedly assaulted so badly that she suffered a broken nose and
shoulder and numerous cuts and bruises.
Media reports claimed the woman, who has borne one of his ten children, wanted
to live a more 'western' lifestyle and was allegedly attacked after telling her
husband.
The police said they received a call from a lawyer hired by the victim.
Adam is alleged to have shouted a verse from the Koran at his wife as he beat
her.
Qur'an 4:34 is quoted almost entirely below:
The line said: 'Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because
God has guarded them.
'As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to
beds apart and beat them.'
The imam is said to have refused to let police officers into his home, but they
forced their way past him because they feared the woman's life was in danger.
Sheikh Adam is the Egyptian imam of the Darul Quran Mosque in Munich.
He is facing charges of causing grievous bodily harm and could face a jail term
if convicted.
A week ago, he held a lecture at the city's Catholic University entitled 'An
Islam which distances itself from violence'.
He also spoke at a recent conference called 'meeting Islam in Europe' and met
German justice Sabine Leutheusser Schnarrenberger there.
His "moderate" credentials should be in jeopardy right about now, between this
and his having three wives, as was reported earlier. And to demonstrate further
the uselessness of frequently applied labels:
Adam was assigned bodyguards on the outside because of his calls for Muslims to
reject radical Islam. He is also being guarded while on remand from racist
prisoners.
Posted by Marisol on December 2, 2010 4:14 PM| 34 Comments
Print this entry| FaceBook| Email this entry| Digg this| del.icio.us| Buzz up!
Categories:
* Germany,
* women's rights in Islam
« Previous Entry | Home Page |Next Entry »
34 Comments
classicus | December 2, 2010 4:52 PM | Reply
Sheikh Adam is the Egyptian imam of the Darul Quran Mosque in Munich.
To the Prosecutors and Judges of the Munich court,
Send Abu Adam to prison for a good stretch, and then deport him to Egypt please.
There is no place for a man like that in your midst. Let him be moderate in
Egypt. Never let him return to Germany.
Gayle Farrow | December 2, 2010 5:00 PM | Reply
A week ago, he [Imam Sheikh Abu Adam; you gotta love that august title of
"imam"] held a lecture at the city's Catholic University entitled 'An Islam
which distances itself from violence'.
++++++++++
This news story failed to give the complete title of the o' so holy "imam's"
lecture, "An Islam which distances itself from violence doesn't exist." "You
know," the imam was quoted as saying, "that non-violent version of Islam of
which soft-headed Western leftists speak was last seen riding away on a unicorn
on its way to file patent papers for a perpetual motion machine."
jewdog | December 2, 2010 5:14 PM | Reply
Maybe the reason this guy felt compelled to preach non-violence was because he
was trying to convince himself. He didn't quite succeed though, did he?
On the other hand, this may be another Alice In Wonderland moment, as happens
when words such as innocent, peace, and non-violence take on entirely different
meanings in Islam. Maybe his wife's Western ways were so heinous in his mind,
that beating her was a form of protection. By that logic, perhaps torturing him
in ingenious and sadistic ways would be therapeutic.
Bonami | December 2, 2010 5:19 PM | Reply
Something else that should, but inexplicably doesn't, should enrage any feminist
worthy of the label:
Because of the TSA's inability to profile actual terrorists, they are making
nursing mothers sit on the dirty airport floor and pour their breastmilk into
different containers. This is really an appalling read:
http://mothering.com/all-things-mothering/breastfeeding/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-travel-with-breast-milk-the-tsa-targets-mothers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motheringblogs+%28Mothering.com+Blogs%29
So women in burqas, who are fundamentalists and therefore much more likely to be
terrorists or at least approve of terrorism get the option to pat themselves
down to preserve their 'modesty', but American women who are only trying to do
what is best for their babies have to get harassed and humiliated and possibly
their baby's health damaged? If that doesn't make the terrorists win I don't
know what does.
Abu_Lahab | December 2, 2010 5:46 PM | Reply
The imam is said to have refused to let police officers into his home...
Ah, the arrogance of the ummah.
Wellington | December 2, 2010 5:58 PM | Reply
4:34 is demonstrative of a fact that many in the West still want to deny (or are
ignorant of) and that is that Islam is, in effect, a guarantee of a permanent
war against women. But, of course, Muslims continue to insist that it is a
guarantee of respect for women---yeah, if they behave according to plan. Just as
Islam is incompatible with liberty, so is it irreconcilable with the idea that
women are equal to men.
I am a very happily married man who considers my wife fully equal to me. She is
not my inferior. She is not my superior. She is my equal. How many married
Muslim men can honestly make this same claim? I might add that even the idea of
striking my wife for any reason fills me with disgust. Again, how many Muslim
men would (could) maintain this?
jewdog | December 2, 2010 6:15 PM | Reply
The macho culture in Latin countries owes much to the seven centuries of Islamic
rule in Spain. And that ended in 1492.
classicus replied to comment from jewdog | December 2, 2010 6:15 PM | Reply
perhaps torturing him in ingenious and sadistic ways would be therapeutic.
Well, as Aeschylus said, "wisdom comes from suffering."
A torture for him would be to have his Islamic identity erased. He would be
wiser. The irony would be that, relieved of Islam, he would not be sadder.
KrazyKafir | December 2, 2010 6:17 PM | Reply
"Adam was assigned bodyguards on the outside because of his calls for Muslims to
reject "radical" Islam."
Well, looks like he's back onboard now.
classicus replied to comment from jewdog | December 2, 2010 6:18 PM | Reply
perhaps torturing him in ingenious and sadistic ways would be therapeutic.
Well, as Aeschylus said, "wisdom comes from suffering."
A torture for him would be to have his Islamic identity erased. He would be
wiser. The irony would be that, relieved of Islam, he would not be sadder.
Livingengine | December 2, 2010 7:54 PM | Reply
". . . a broken nose, and shoulder. ."
I am imagining some kind of pulling the arm behind the back, and then open hand
strikes to the nose. I wonder what he said to her while that was going on?
It's not irony, it's a warning.
Bhobby replied to comment from jewdog | December 2, 2010 8:03 PM | Reply
I have thought about that too, the possible connection between the culture of
the modern Spaniard (especially the machismo) and the influence of long Islamic
domination. I've never seen a seriously done detailed exposition of that idea,
though. Then again, the Spanish people did eventually throw off the Islamic
yoke, and to do that there must have been a conscious breakaway from Muslim
culture too. (Please don't anyone waste everyones time and accuse me of
anti-hispanic attitudes).
Lou Bator | December 2, 2010 8:36 PM | Reply
It baffles me as to why this mahound was lecturing at a Catholic University!
grungyoldvan | December 2, 2010 8:43 PM | Reply
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1240014
Can you imagine being this muslim? I'll bet he couldn't believe his dumb luck to
be surrounded by dummy dhimmis..
traeh | December 2, 2010 8:51 PM | Reply
THE QUR'AN DOES NOT SAY BEAT YOUR WIFE IF SHE IS DISOBEDIENT; IT SAYS BEAT HER
IF YOU MERELY "FEAR" OR SUSPECT DISOBEDIENCE
Below are ten translations of the notorious portion of Qur'an Chapter 4, Verse
34, the beat-your-disobedient-woman verse.
Some of the translators insert the word (lightly) after "beat." None of the
insertions in parentheses are in the original Arabic of the Qur'an.
Six of the ten translations use the word "beat."
Two translations use the word "scourge," which as a verb means to whip.
And two of the translations use the word "chastise." Most dictionaries give
corporal punishment (beating, or "stripes") as one of the main definitions of
"chastise."
Pickthall: "and scourge them"
Yusuf Ali: "(And last) beat them (lightly)"
Al-Hilali/Khan: "(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"
Shakir: "and beat them"
Sher Ali: "and chastise them"
Khalifa: "then you may (as a last alternative) beat them"
Arberry: "and beat them"
Rodwell: "and scourge them"
Sale: "and chastise them"
Asad: "then beat them"
Dawood: "and beat them."
-----------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES OF ISLAM'S FOUNDERS HITTING WOMEN
From Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most canonical hadith
collections:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 828:
Narrated Aisha [Muhammad's favorite wife]:
Abu Bakr [first caliph, father of Aisha, and companion of Muhammad]came towards
me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people
because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I
should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.
Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3506:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr...came and
sought permission to see Allah's Messenger...He found people sitting at his door
and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu
Bakr and he went in. Then came Umar and he sought permission and it was granted
to him, and he found Allah's Apostle...sitting sad and silent with his wives
around him. He (Hadrat Umar) said: I would say something which would make the
Holy Prophet...laugh, so he [Umar]said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen
(the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some
money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger
[Muhammad]...laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra
money. Abu Bakr [who was later to become first caliph]...then got up went to
A'isha...and slapped her on the neck, and Umar [who was later to become second
caliph]stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's
Messenger...which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask
Allah's Messenger...for anything he does not possess...(In the above hadith, all
ellipses (...), except the one at the very end, indicate my omission of ritual
phrases only, such as, "may peace be upon him."
Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127:
...(the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that
you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle
and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and
mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it
the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He
[Muhammad]struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you
think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?...Sahih Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married
her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to
her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by
beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's
Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the
believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"...
Sadly, wife-beating goes on in all societies. But most societies outlaw it and
punish it. Islam's core texts and founders encourage it.
Medina replied to comment from Lou Bator | December 2, 2010 8:53 PM | Reply
It baffles me as to why this mahound was lecturing at a Catholic University!
----------
I went to a Catholic University 20 years ago and it does NOT baffle me...in the
least.
What baffles me is how a wifebeating husband can have 3 wives in Germany.
Perhaps the other "family" members can be checked for injuries whilst the
deportation officers are processing their paperwork.
traeh | December 2, 2010 8:54 PM | Reply
IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, WE LEARN THAT MUHAMMAD ALLOWED HIS SOLDIERS TO RAPE THEIR
CAPTIVE WOMEN
From Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id,
did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He
said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab
women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives,
(but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have
sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual
organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing
an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked
Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not
matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of
Resurrection will be born.
Notice that Muhammad did not say, "do not rape your captive women." He merely
says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because
souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.
From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
>I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him
>about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's
>Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu
>Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired
>women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So
>when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus
>interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?"
>We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if
>any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
>
Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You
must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that
coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because
souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.
Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
>We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus
>with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] about it and he said, "Do you
>really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is
>destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
>
Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says
that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men were to keep going till
coitus was complete.
CateLaurel | December 2, 2010 8:56 PM | Reply
But don't you realize, to him "wife-beating" is NOT violence! - particularly
because it is recommended in the quran. So wife-beating doesn't technically
qualify as violence(to him). It's a neat way of taking oneself off the hook, so
to speak.
traeh | December 2, 2010 9:08 PM | Reply
MUHAMMAD SAYS THE MINDS OF WOMEN ARE DEFICIENT
In Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
>The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?"
>The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's
>mind."
kafir4life | December 2, 2010 9:13 PM | Reply
Can somebody send this to the Oklahoma clueless judge
traeh | December 2, 2010 9:19 PM | Reply
IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD SAYS WOMEN ARE DEFICIENT IN INTELLIGENCE AND
RELIGION
In Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
>Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha
>or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as
>I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)."
>They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse
>frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more
>deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could
>be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is
>deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He [Muhammad] said, "Is not the
>evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the
>affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true
>that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in
>the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
>
traeh | December 2, 2010 9:26 PM | Reply
IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD SAYS BEAT YOUR WIFE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED
In Sunan Abu Dawud, one of the canonical hadith collections:
Book 11, Number 2142:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
>The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat
>his wife.
traeh | December 2, 2010 10:05 PM | Reply
On page 651 (969 in the Arabic) of the EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, HE
ACCEPTS THAT WIVES ARE MERE "PRISONERS" WITH "NO CONTROL OF THEIR PERSONS"
You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the
right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with
open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and
beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things they have the
right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly,
for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons. You have
taken them only as a trust from God, and you have the enjoyment of their persons
by the words of God, so understand my words, O men, for I have told you. I have
left with you something which if you will hold fast to it you will never fall
into error -- a plain indication, the book of Allah and the practice of His
prophet, so give good heed to what I say.
Prisoners. This seems to be Muhammad's -- and perhaps the ancient Bedouin's --
concept of women as captured spoils of war, property, chattel.
Susanp | December 2, 2010 10:29 PM | Reply
I just love the beautiful, inspirational islamic 'family values' that are
constantly touted by the mendacious, devious muslim invaders. This despicable
savage has ten children and four wives, one of whom he just brutally assaulted.
He has probably beat all of them, setting a noble example of islamic manhood for
his spawn. Why aren't the left-wing environmentalists condemning muslims for
having obscenely large families they cannot support, or are only white people
supposed to stop bearing children in an effort to save the planet's resources?
In this imam's mind, he has not committed 'violence' against his wife, he has
done what his religion commands him to do. Violence and hate are ingrained in
muslims because islam consists of little else. Allah's will cannot be
questioned, only obeyed. Since allah's directives as set forth in the qur'an and
sharia are antithetical to Western law and common decency, islam is totally
incompatible with the West.
I remember how nice life was prior to the muslim invasion and the advent of
official 'multiculturalism', which was imposed on America in the dead of night
and without the consent of the people. I refuse to acknowledge or participate in
the left-wing aberrations known as multiculturalism, moral relativism, and
cultural Marxism. I've lived my entire life among a diverse population, the most
diverse population in the world. I never gave it a second thought until we
entered the era of affirmative action, special interest minority groups,
identity politics, and the left's perverse social engineering schemes designed
to divide instead of unite. They are destroying this country with their
'progressive' agenda. We can't absorb much more of their 'progress' and survive.
Isabellathecrusader | December 2, 2010 11:16 PM | Reply
"The line said: 'Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because
God has guarded them."
Good women rarely make history. ; )
Zulu | December 2, 2010 11:19 PM | Reply
Islamic extremism: is this the year's most embarrassing academic report?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100066569/islamic-extremism-is-this-the-years-most-embarrassing-academic-report/
Jesse Toler | December 2, 2010 11:33 PM | Reply
If I recall, the type of beating is likened to that which is given to a hores
and/or a crimnal, though I don't have the source in front of me right now.
Liz | December 3, 2010 2:40 AM | Reply
A few years ago, my husband and I were good friends with an Americanized Muslum,
and the Muslim told my husband that the Koran said you can beat your wife
(lightly) if she won't have sex with you.
duh_swami | December 3, 2010 5:12 AM | Reply
'Beat them lightly' has no standard...So what is 'lightly' is up to the
beater...Lightly is not used in 4:34 anyway, and was apparently added by Yusuf
Ali to 'soften the blow' so to speak...
sumdum | December 3, 2010 5:26 AM | Reply
That goes beyond the point though. If your wife 'disobeys' you (why should a
wife obey you ? She's not your dog) you should not beat her. Not lightly, not
with a miswak, not AT ALL. And it seems apologists totally ignore this.
Thomas Pellow | December 3, 2010 5:48 AM | Reply
"Germans feel threatened by Islam: Poll"
A Pakistani media report:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/02/germans-feel-threatened-by-islam-poll.html
Proud_Kafir7908 | December 3, 2010 6:25 AM | Reply
Roland? Abdullah Mikhail? Cherie Blair? Lauren Booth? Buraq Hussein? David
Cameron? David Dhimmiliband? Dinesh? Rezlarab Aslan?
Yomayngsup | December 3, 2010 8:12 AM | Reply
it is terribly unfortunate that this happens, but this may start to wake up
those who have been asleep at the wheel for so long. in a strange way, this may
have been a good thing--as long as you aren't married to a muslim.
Yomayngsup | December 3, 2010 8:14 AM | Reply
in a strange, and unfortunate way, this may be a good thing in that it might be
eye-opening to those who have their heads up in dark places where the sun
doesn't shine
No comments:
Post a Comment