It's Not What You Might Be Led To Think

I want to take over from where I left off in the comment section of the previous lead zeppelin post:

In regards to THIS article:

Wife-beating OK under sharia law, just don’t leave marks

According to a ruling by a Supreme Court in the United Arab Emirates, Islamic sharia law allows a man to “discipline” his wife and children so long as he doesn’t leave physical marks.

The judgment was made in the case of a man who slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife. He injured them both slightly and left bruises on them both.

I don't know how the hell any form of physical discipline can be administered without leaving some kind of mark, however slight that mark may be. I'm sure that maybe it's possible for a skilled hand, but I'll remain skeptical for now.

The federal court in Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, said that their bruises were evidence that the father went too far and abused his legal rights.

The Guardian.co.uk reported that in the case of the wife, it was the degree of severity that put the man in breach of the law. But his daughter was 23, and therefore too old to be disciplined by her father, the court said. He claimed he did not mean to harm either of them.

The Sharjah court of first instance fined the father for abuse. The decision was upheld by Sharjah's court of appeals but he appealed against the verdict at the federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi.

Please note: the husband/father in question was found to be in violation. Funny how this part didn't end up in the headline, because this is the element that matters the most, along with the statements of the courts and Islamic scholars:

Jihad Hashim Brown, head of research at the Tabah Foundation, said: "It's unlawful in sharia – if taken in its entirety – to injure one's wife. It's unlawful to insult the dignity of one's wife. That is if we look at the tradition as a whole: the Qur'an, the hadith and writings of Islamic jurists."
Under sharia law beating one’s wife is an option to prevent the breakdown of the family and should only be used as a substitute to resorting to the police. Love and respect, according to Dr. Jassim al-Shamsi, dean of the college of law at UAE University, are more important among husbands and wives than any discipline.

(emphasis mine)
Now, let me explain something, as it has been explained to me in the past by devout, strictly adherent Muslims:

In Islam, the man is charged with the obligation to attend to the protection, upkeep, and preservation of the family. It is he who must answer most strongly before God for any failings. So, it makes sense that any God-fearing man would not want to be found derelict in this duty on judgement day.
Just like it makes no sense to assign responsibility without authority, authority without effect makes no sense, either.
(Imagine being charged with a massive amount of responsibility, under threat of eternal damnation, and then being told that if something goes wrong you aren't allowed to do shit about it. Who would sign up for that job? Most importantly, what would be the state of society in general if nobody had responsibility for anything? Into this vacuum, steps the faith.)

What I see here, and in the words of the scholars, along with the explanations of Muslims I have known, is a tough line to walk.
It's not a perfect world, and there are few perfect people to pair into perfect marriages. No scholar or holy man can look into the crystal ball and reveal all the various combinations of issues that may arise, in many forms, in any of the households among the billions of individuals who reside within them.
By default, therefore, a man has some effectual authority...

... but not outside of the principles that are established, to quote again:

"It's unlawful in sharia – if taken in its entirety – to injure one's wife. It's unlawful to insult the dignity of one's wife. That is if we look at the tradition as a whole: the Qur'an, the hadith and writings of Islamic jurists."

Quite clearly, there is no carte blanche in Islam for wife beating.
Just as there isn't one in Christianity, despite that the Bible calls for women to submit to their husbands.
But it's still done, and various cultures throughout the world that claim any number of principle faiths contain it.

(From what I've seen, the Muslim men are as fearful of irate/displeased wives as any one of us are. As one tells me: 'Woman is Woman, no matter where she's from.')

What shocks me is how people will allow their understandings of Islam to be formed by inaccurate headlines or ignorant preachers with an agenda, but they would never allow a Jew or Hindu to inform the world about Christianity.