Muslims: Keeping the wife "in line"

[Enlighten]

No problem Unfortunately there is no consensus of opinion. All one can do is present their side of evidence and hope people see reason to it, however I believe that a very literalistic interpretation of the Qur'an (i.e without looking at the context and methodological use of the word) because of the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is very active in promoting Salafism. Also note the absence of women within the scholarly realm within this day and age and I believe we run into a masculine bias.

I want to point out that many commentators view the beating as symbolic. The use of a toothbrush or a folded handkerchief thrown at a women is hardly the same as a beating which Merriam-Webster defines as As I said in my earlier post this action is one of emotional expression rather than a physical attack " Firstly, it is important to realize that the traditional view of "lightly hitting" a spouse is viewed as a symbolic action. It is not used as something of physical harm but rather of emotional nature. The nature of the action speaks for itself rather than implying that physical abuse is a prerequisite for it to be effective. Secondly, the Qur'an mandates that spouses must first leave each others' bed meaning that such an action is done after reflection over the conflict limiting powerful and fleeting emotions such as anger or haste pushing a husband to physically harm his wife. Thus what we have is a cultural expression of extreme discontent and anger over a particular issue, but not a mandate for domestic abuse."

Thank you for taking time to explain, as much as it is not how I would like my relationship to be, some would not thank me for mine .

One last thing to add from my point of view, the text highlighted blue, I still would not like my husband to do this as it to me is a form on humiliation to throw something at another person (unless it is "catch"), I'd prefer they spoke to me. Edit: But yes, it is not the same as a physical beating

 

[Enlighten]

yeah you right , each family had his way to resolove problems ,
some are don't accept their daughter to be beated even she was wrong , and some others beated her again , her husband beat her , then if she goes to her family to reclame she will beated if they found her she is the troublemake.

I don't know who to address this to so I will address to all participating who have the knowledge. Yes - I have thought of another question

Would it be agreed before marriage as to whether it would be accepted or not? Or would the husband know from the family history?

 

[waitasec]

Thank you for taking time to explain, as much as it is not how I would like my relationship to be, some would not thank me for mine .

One last thing to add from my point of view, the text highlighted blue, I still would not like my husband to do this as it to me is a form on humiliation to throw something at another person (unless it is "catch"), I'd prefer they spoke to me. Edit: But yes, it is not the same as a physical beating

i think you nailed it...

it is an act to humiliate another person in order to make them do something without resorting to reasoning with one another and to meet with a compromise. it's like justifying a temper tantrum....
not so impressive in my book :no:

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't know who to address this to so I will address to all participating who have the knowledge. Yes - I have thought of another question

Would it be agreed before marriage as to whether it would be accepted or not? Or would the husband know from the family history?

you mean beat for insubordinate wife ? yes fo course
but accuatly insubordinate wives are very rare (not the majority ) , and maybe we found insubordinate wife life normal with her husband , because he fall in love (lover her more than she love him ) or because he is just male .

 

[Enlighten]

you mean beat for insubordinate wife ? yes fo course
but accuatly insubordinate wives are very rare (not the majority ) , and maybe we found insubordinate wife life normal with her husband , because he fall in love (lover her more than she love him ) or because he is just male .

So it's more a family tradition (for want of a better phrase) rather than a general "if the male decides he want to introduce this into the marriage when/if he deems she is insubordinate? This would have to be agreed with the family? This would tell me (from my point of view) that it will be very scarce as I personally cannot see a father agreeing to his daughter receiving this treatment. (Not that I condone it, even if scarce).

 

[Bismillah]

One last thing to add from my point of view, the text highlighted blue, I still would not like my husband to do this as it to me is a form on humiliation to throw something at another person (unless it is "catch"), I'd prefer they spoke to me. Edit: But yes, it is not the same as a physical beating

That is true but remember that this is the third and final part of a reconciliation process. The first, as you suggested, is to admonish them, the second is to "leave them alone in bed", and the third being the action in question. It's important to remember that these are all steps taken in chronological order so as to abate anger that may affect one's actions.

It is also important to remember that the source of this strife is nushuz which means severe ill-will within a marriage including sexual lewdness or cheating, as detailed earlier. These steps are taken as a means to prevent a divorce and the end of all formal relations, the last step is appropriately the harshest and most poignant. That is at this point, if all other attempts to reconcile have failed and the spouse is guilty of committing such a grave transgression, the symbolic action perhaps intending to humiliate as you have suggested is one to put a spouse back in her senses and allow her to reexamine both her action and whether she wants to pursue an amicable end to this fight. It is also worth noting that a women has the right to seek a divorce at point during this process.

 

[Enlighten]

That is true but remember that this is the third and final part of a reconciliation process. The first, as you suggested, is to admonish them, the second is to "leave them alone in bed", and the third being the action in question. It's important to remember that these are all steps taken in chronological order so as to abate anger that may affect one's actions.

It is also important to remember that the source of this strife is nushuz which means severe ill-will within a marriage including sexual lewdness or cheating, as detailed earlier. These steps are taken as a means to prevent a divorce and the end of all formal relations, the last step is appropriately the harshest and most poignant. That is at this point, if all other attempts to reconcile have failed and the spouse is guilty of committing such a grave transgression, the symbolic action perhaps intending to humiliate as you have suggested is one to put a spouse back in her senses and allow her to reexamine both her action and whether she wants to pursue an amicable end to this fight. It is also worth noting that a women has the right to seek a divorce at point during this process.

Thank you for explaining, whilst I still stand by the humiliation part, I will now reveal why I have been so active in questioning to get full understanding of what's acceptable and what is not. You see, years ago, my mother's friend Kneez was murdered and her daughter almost died at the hands of her husband/father, so any form of violence towards women utterly shake me to the core. Thankfully Helima recovered fully, I cannot read the article to see if it does as so many memories flood back but I have attached it to explain why I have been so heated throughout.

Killing frenzy sparked by card | Herald Scotland

Edit: I want to add that violence towards men also shakes me to the core for anyone who picks up on the point, but in line with this thread I used women.

 

[Enlighten]

Sorry I did not mean to bring an end to a thread, I just decided to share to show with no limits or ambigious text (which as you will have seen has been my worry) this is a potential outcome for those who do not understand, it just so happens I know the family in question.

 

[beenie]

That is true but remember that this is the third and final part of a reconciliation process. The first, as you suggested, is to admonish them, the second is to "leave them alone in bed", and the third being the action in question. It's important to remember that these are all steps taken in chronological order so as to abate anger that may affect one's actions.

It is also important to remember that the source of this strife is nushuz which means severe ill-will within a marriage including sexual lewdness or cheating, as detailed earlier. These steps are taken as a means to prevent a divorce and the end of all formal relations, the last step is appropriately the harshest and most poignant. That is at this point, if all other attempts to reconcile have failed and the spouse is guilty of committing such a grave transgression, the symbolic action perhaps intending to humiliate as you have suggested is one to put a spouse back in her senses and allow her to reexamine both her action and whether she wants to pursue an amicable end to this fight. It is also worth noting that a women has the right to seek a divorce at point during this process.

I tried to frubal you again, but it seems I've been doing that a lot lately.

Your explanation is well-thought out and very nicely put.

 

[Enlighten]

Your explanation is well-thought out and very nicely put.

I agree 100%, given me insight I didn't have before which has led to me being more understanding. I hope those who did not realise this take on it reads and understands as a result.

 

[Draka]

What I have found interesting here are the numerous claims by godobeyer that he is against abuse of women, yet for physical "discipline" in the forms of slapping. FYI, slapping a person IS abusive. It's abusive to slap your children, it's abusive to slap your spouse.

Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV), is broadly defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one or both partners in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, or cohabitation.[1] Domestic violence, so defined, has many forms, including physical aggression or assault (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse (e.g., neglect); and economic deprivation.[1][2] Alcohol consumption[3] and mental illness[4] can be co-morbid with abuse, and present additional challenges in eliminating domestic violence. Awareness, perception, definition and documentation of domestic violence differs widely from country to country, and from era to era.
Domestic violence and abuse isn't limited to obvious physical violence. Domestic violence can also mean endangerment, criminal coercion, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, trespassing, harassment, and stalking

Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause feelings of intimidation, pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.
Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, punching, choking, pushing, burning and other types of contact that result in physical injury to the victim. Physical abuse can also include behaviors such as denying the victim of medical care when needed, depriving the victim of sleep or other functions necessary to live, or forcing the victim to engage in drug/alcohol use against his/her will. If a person is suffering from any physical harm then they are experiencing physical abuse. This pain can be experienced on any level.[39] It can also include inflicting physical injury onto other targets, such as children or pets, in order to cause psychological harm to the victim.

Domestic violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See, to me, to try to reason your way out of admitting it is abusive is to try to set yourself apart from being abusive. Like my first husband, he maintained he never abused me because he didn't punch me or flat out hit me. He would throw me around into furniture, kick me, bite me, and other things, but he never outright punched me. So to him, he wasn't abusing me. By trying to negate that slapping, or other abusive actions, are abusive a person is just twisting what is abuse in their minds so that they don't have to feel guilty for being abusive. No, it's not them...they wouldn't do something like that...what they do is different.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It's abusive to slap your children,

Is slapping different than spanking? Is spanking your child abusive? Does it matter if the slap is to the face or the butt?

 

[beenie]

Is slapping different than spanking? Is spanking your child abusive? Does it matter if the slap is to the face or the butt?

Personally I think it should be avoided. When a parent spanks or slaps a child, rarely is it done for true "discipline", but rather it's done out of frustration and/or anger.

As a child who was spanked, I cannot recall WHY I was spanked, I only recall the embarrassment and sadness. I might stop short of calling it abuse though...just short. Face slapping seems to humiliate to the point I might feel differently about that.

 

[not nom]

That is true but remember that this is the third and final part of a reconciliation process. The first, as you suggested, is to admonish them, the second is to "leave them alone in bed", and the third being the action in question. It's important to remember that these are all steps taken in chronological order so as to abate anger that may affect one's actions.

It is also important to remember that the source of this strife is nushuz which means severe ill-will within a marriage including sexual lewdness or cheating, as detailed earlier. These steps are taken as a means to prevent a divorce and the end of all formal relations, the last step is appropriately the harshest and most poignant. That is at this point, if all other attempts to reconcile have failed and the spouse is guilty of committing such a grave transgression, the symbolic action perhaps intending to humiliate as you have suggested is one to put a spouse back in her senses and allow her to reexamine both her action and whether she wants to pursue an amicable end to this fight. It is also worth noting that a women has the right to seek a divorce at point during this process.

this is all nice and well, but... what's the recourse for a women who has a lewd or cheating husband? why is him doing wrong and needing correction not even a possibility?

 

[waitasec]

Is slapping different than spanking? Is spanking your child abusive? Does it matter if the slap is to the face or the butt?

as a parent, i refuse to resort to violence when teaching my son a lesson.
if if hit him, or spank him as it were, it saying it's ok to hit (hitting is a form of violence) as a last resort. it is never ok to hit... it perpetuates this notion that it's ok to hit as a last resort...the cycle has to end, imo.

 

[waitasec]

this is all nice and well, but... what's the recourse for a women who has a lewd or cheating husband? why is him doing wrong and needing correction not even a possibility?

opcorn:

 

[beenie]

this is all nice and well, but... what's the recourse for a women who has a lewd or cheating husband? why is him doing wrong and needing correction not even a possibility?

IDEALLY, she can most certainly divorce him. Here's where culture takes over religious rights for women.

I look at this from this perspective:

This passage is more of a limit/control put on MEN. Remember, men were marrying over and over again, killing infant girls, and killing women in general. Before Islam, women had a very low place in society and were treated like property. While I don't like the ambiguity of the word used for "beat, scourge, separate," etc., I can see where guidance came to men about how to handle disagreements with their wives.

As a general rule, men are more physically driven; their FIRST action may be to beat and ask questions later. This passage is telling them to exhaust all possibilities before taking dramatic action...which I accept as separating.

Rarely does a woman do enough damage physically to a man that WOMEN need limitations placed on them. Remember, we're talking about centuries ago; today, I'm quite sure some women may need direction too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The debate of whether slapping is allowed or not seems to still be going on. Even if beating is allowed (and I'm using the word "beating" loosely here), slapping is not. It is very clear and anyone arguing otherwise clearly hasn't read enough on the subject or has a huge misunderstanding.

 

[not nom]

IDEALLY, she can most certainly divorce him.

well, that's at least something

 

[not nom]

This passage is more of a limit/control put on MEN.

while not questioning their absolute authority though.

but sure, it's good to regulate things sometimes -- until they can be abolished. the days of women being mere appendages to their husbands, not fit to think or argue, are over ("if we want to").