Wednesday, October 20, 2010

UAE Supreme Court-Beatings Are OK, But Don't Leave a Mark

There is an old DEA story that has made the rounds for decades about an incident that reportedly occurred in the DEA New York office many years ago. Supposedly, agents were questioning an arrestee, who was not being cooperative. Suddenly, a naked man (agent) ran into the room with a long sausage, which he began whipping the guy with in the face  before running back out. At this point, the prisoner cracked and answered every question. When he went to court, his lawyer filed a motion for suppression of the confession based on physical coertion. When the judge heard the story, he nearly fell off the bench laughing before denying the motion.

Of course, the "beating" had left no marks on the prisoner.

I was reminded of that story by the recent decision of the United Arab  Emnirates Supreme Court that a man who had been fined for beating his wife was justified under sharia law-as long as he did not leave marks. This, of course, goes back to what is said on the subject in the Koran. If a man has a problem with his wife, he should first admonish her, then  refuse to sleep with her, then, as a last recourse, beat her lightly but don't leave any marks.

That, of course, would never work in the Fouse household. Marks or no marks, the first time I tried that, Mrs Fouse would be out the door for good.

Even if I used a sausage.

* The National Organization of Women, to my knowledge, has not issued a statement on the UAE case.

5 comments:

  1. Further proof that we shouldn't look to ancient (or would that be Medieval for the Koran?) texts for our present-day morals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now I am no advocated of corporal punishment, especially between adults, consenting or nonconsenting, but this story about sharia does remind me of a testimony I heard in a Pentecostal church. An elderly woman recited how she had whipped her daughter with an extension cord, and after some bruises were noticed by school authorities, a police officer came to her door.

    He didn't arrest her. He was a big red haired Irish cop, old school. He said, use a broad leather belt, apply it ONLT to "the cushion God gave her," and

    (here is the relevant punch line)

    "stop before you break the skin."

    Now I don't endorse that advice, although I don't advocated criminal laws that would prohibit a parent ever lifting a hand to their child, but I do note that both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christian American citizens have made use of the criterion, don't leave any marks on the skin.

    I agree, not on a man's wife. I agree. Still, its not about Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Siarlys,

    Very confusing. Is there not a difference between corporal punishment of a child and beating a wife?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is Gary, as I explicitly said. Your confusion appears to be self-induced. My point is that the criterion "as long as you don't break the skin" is hardly unique to Islam. Considering that almost anyone who shares the same abode for several years is likely to run into some physical confrontation, I'm not sure that physical signs of damage is not a bad criterion for legal intervention. Is there a wife who has NEVER hit her husband? My mother certainly hit my father now and then.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is there a wife who has NEVER hit her husband?

    My wife and I have been together for over ten years, and she's never hit me. (And no, I haven't hit her either.) It's kind of hard for me to picture either of us hitting the other.

    ReplyDelete