Mohammed had conjugal relations with Aisha. That’s what made it a marriage. Long before Aisha came along the Prophet had talked to Allah about what constituted a proper marriage and it became the law in a large part of the world—sex on demand. Fortunately the Islamic version is not the only one—Mickey Rooney had his; Mammy Yokum had hers.

Archie Bunker’s approach to marriage, while quite common, has never been fully understood. And there was Ralph Kramden—the Honeymooner, the cave man without a club. One might add Pa Kettle and Henry Tremblechin to the mix.

When Archie wanted sex he would stop with the stifles, use terms of endearment other than dingbat, make believe he was Rhett Butler and hop into bed. If Edith had a headache and said, “not today, Archie,” there was not much he could do about it. One child was enough anyway. They could use a man like Herbert Hoover rather than a larger family.

Ralph Kramden was forever threatening to send Alice to the moon. Would he have done so if she had denied him her sexual favors? Would he have forced himself on her, beaten her lightly and raped her? Not likely. There are laws against that kind of thing in many parts of the world. But those laws are in conflict with the Qur’an.

According to Muslim cleric Samir Abu Hamza, Archie and Ralph were saps and Western criminal laws—that protect women who refuse to service their husbands on demand from being beaten, particularly in Australia, where Hamza resides—are not only ridiculous and un-Islamic but should also be overturned. To expedite this cultural change Hamza had recorded a lecture: The Keys to a successful marriage. It is not about sharing, it is about following the Qur’an.

“In this country,” says Hamza, “if the husband wants to sleep with his wife and she does not want to and she hasn’t got a sickness or whatever, there is nothing wrong with her she just does not feel like it, and he ends up sleeping with her by force…it is known to be as rape. Amazing, how a person can rape his wife?”

Ah, the wonders of cultural diversity! Liberals can never get enough of it! It is something they can tolerate. A little more Sharia Law and most wife beaters will be Muslims.

Suppose the Bunkers were Muslims and Edith was making brownies or scouring the bathtub with Handy Andy and Archie was in need of instant amorous attention and Edith refused? Archie would be entitled to beat her but not too severely—right? What does that mean—not too severely? Whomping someone with a wet noodle would not be likely to produce much compliance. It would take something more physical—right? Now the nikab can hide a lot of cuts and bruises—right? And there is something to be said for the hijab and the burqa.

Muslim Holy Scripture says women are like domestic animals and possess nothing themselves and Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an (Tabari IX:113). But beat them lightly. Does that forbid water boarding? Suppose in a moment of excitement Mohammed Kramden applied a choke hold to Alice, what then? Would a chokehold constitute a beating? What does the fine print say? It is not nice to beat anyone—lightly or not.

Ulysses S. Grant once tied a teamster to a tree for an entire day for beating a mule. Surely a woman must be equal to a mule. Actually Ulysses considered women to be superior to mules. He was a man ahead of his time. He would have made a better Prophet than Mohammed and he had fewer fleas in his beard but that would be a topic for another day.

Hamza said a wife had the same right to demand sex as her husband. Sure, as long as he doesn’t have a headache. There is nothing in the Qur’an that allows women to beat their husbands and no woman no matter how recreant in her wifely duties is to be beaten on the head. They can be beaten on the arms; they can be beaten on the legs, not on the head. Electricity cords are said to be a popular method of instilling conjugal discipline. (Grant’s teamster beat his mule on the head) Obviously the Granny Clampetts and Mammy Yokums are few and far between in Islam.

But what is the fuss? Hamza delivered his lecture several years ago. It’s old news. Yes, that may be true, but the lecture wasn’t posted on the Internet until late last year and it is belatedly causing a stir.

Hamza does not want to talk about it. “Don’t call me, don’t bother me and please don’t call me ever again,” he said. Case closed!

Islam is a "religion of peace and tolerance" and does not condone violence of any kind. We beat our women only lightly, though “killing unbelievers is a small matter to us" (Tabari IX: 69).

But Muslims do not marry disbelievers—nor do they normally marry other the people of the Book, the Christians and Jews. It’s the Jews who have a special place in Islam. Hamza has not forgotten that. What was it Bukhari said? Oh, yes, V1.B1.N6: “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”

If it weren’t for the Jews there would be no controversy at all, says Hamza. It’s part of the Zionist agenda to control the media. Sure, and the thousands of honor killings in Pakistan and in Afghanistan and in Turkey and in Iran and in Somalia and in London and even in Dallas, Texas, has had nothing to do with Islam’s bad reputation. Sure.

Thank you, Archie Bunker, for your grace and humanity.