Jump to content
Spanking Needs Forums

Islamic Law re Disciplining Wives


Recommended Posts

Did anyone else catch the Qatari sociologist speak about how to properly discipline a wife and the backlash it has received? Basically, first step talk to wife, second step move out of bed and as a last resort discipline. No striking on the face but as I research it more physical discipline is allowed so as to not give marks and permanent damage. Not sure about step 2 but I guess backlash is in line with feelings towards  DD relationship.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Spank_Disciplinarian said:

Not sure about step 2 but I guess backlash is in line with feelings towards  DD relationship.

While backlash may seem similar, one HUGE difference (and defense) is consent. In a DD relationship, the wife consents to this. 

  • Like 2
Link to post

Hmm...not sure about this. If my boyfriend started slapping my arm and shaking me, I'd get the urge to punch him in the nose and tell him to spank me like a real man!!!

Sorry, couldn't help it!!!

  • Haha 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, Spank_Disciplinarian said:

Is it not similar with CDD? Not sure but appreciate feedback.

Actually, there are a lot of similarities.  Big difference is in many countries is Islamic law is State law.  Why we shouldn't be wanting to be a Christian nation in our secular laws.

You can allow CDD without it becoming the law of the land.  The old two consenting adults.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Islam allows a man to discipline his wife for disobedience with some restrictions. She has no choice.

Step one. Admonish her, verbal chastisement

Step two. Deny her your bed

Stem three. Use corporal punishment. Start gently and increase severity until she complies. He may not kill or maim her. Husband may not hit her in places that would make her "ugly"

A strap, small whip or stick are employed across the woman's back.

Spanking is a Western thing.

Link to post

I really hate when this sort of thing is wrapped around any religious doctrine.

Consensual is the key to whether or not this is appropriate.  I don't care if you are a minister, imam, rabbi or flipping Buddhist monk if I were a woman you'd quickly meet the God that told you it was ok to hit me.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
On 4/24/2019 at 10:39 AM, Needsitbad said:

I really hate when this sort of thing is wrapped around any religious doctrine.

Consensual is the key to whether or not this is appropriate.  I don't care if you are a minister, imam, rabbi or flipping Buddhist monk if I were a woman you'd quickly meet the God that told you it was ok to hit me.

 

A woman in a Muslim country would be stoned to death (yes - they really stone you) for killing her husband. Sharia allows a man to beat his wife with certain restrictions. She has no say in her punishment.

 

Link to post
27 minutes ago, ChuckStern said:

A woman in a Muslim country would be stoned to death (yes - they really stone you) for killing her husband. Sharia allows a man to beat his wife with certain restrictions. She has no say in her punishment.

 

And with an abusive husband likely dead anyway.....or living a miserable life.

If you're going to go anyway...take a few of the mother jumpers with you ☺

But, not all Muslim countries are like this.  Or really we should say "predominantly Muslum."  Some Muslims, like some christians...or Jewish people or..whatever..prefer to leave the 14th century where it belongs. 

And none of this has the least bit to do with Islam.  It has more to do with a bunch of feckless nitwits who wind up in control of their governments and come to the realization that keeping themselves in power is easier if they are the final say on what God wants.

 

Sorry, hate to pontificate (pun intended) but it's sad to see it happen anywhere.   Even sadder that it can happen here if we are not careful

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, ChuckStern said:

A woman in a Muslim country would be stoned to death (yes - they really stone you) for killing her husband. Sharia allows a man to beat his wife with certain restrictions. She has no say in her punishment.

 

So we go back to what the original question is. What is the difference?

CONSENT

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, gingerlee said:

So we go back to what the original question is. What is the difference?

CONSENT

I would even one step further if i may

..safe and consensual.

We used to say safe SANE and consensual but I can't really put a good definition on sane

 

Link to post
15 hours ago, Needsitbad said:

And none of this has the least bit to do with Islam.  It has more to do with a bunch of feckless nitwits who wind up in control of their governments and come to the realization that keeping themselves in power is easier if they are the final say on what God wants.

Quran 4:34:  - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."  

Link to post
3 hours ago, AfterGeometry said:

Quran 4:34:  - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."  

Well,ok, shall we also compare selections from Leviticus and claim that the Christian world advocates killing people who work on the Sabbath?  What is the difference?  By the way, the western tradition is not so terribly understanding of women either.

Any religion I am aware of is filled with doctrine ranging from the odd to the downright insane.  

Islam is about surrendering oneself to the will of God.  At least that is my understanding as I am not Muslim.

unlike some agnostics I don't hold such a dim view of religions.  Sure, they rely on non falsifiable claims and any that I can think of have a streak of misogyny but when we decide to leave that part back in the past the central messages are quite pleasant.

Link to post

The difference is that Christians do not live TODAY under rules of the Old Testament. That is basic to Christian Faith. To my knowledge no one who claims to follow Christ today is justifying the use of those ancient rules.  Spankings for most of us are given to help ee's who consent to discipline and find it helps them.  Not the case for some folks--not all of course--to use their religion to abuse ee's.

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, Davyd said:

The difference is that Christians do not live TODAY under rules of the Old Testament. That is basic to Christian Faith. To my knowledge no one who claims to follow Christ today is justifying the use of those ancient rules.  Spankings for most of us are given to help ee's who consent to discipline and find it helps them.  Not the case for some folks--not all of course--to use their religion to abuse ee's.

Nor do most Muslims. People in the US talk about Sharia law as if it is one thing upon which all Muslims agree. It is not. There are four main schools of interpretation in Sunni Islam and endless variations from there--to say nothing of the wide variety of Shi'a schools. And don't even get me started on the Sufis. Just as there are Mainline Protestants who do not interpret the Bible literally or view it as inerrant (a 19th-century concept) while there are Evangelicals who do view it as the inerrant, literal Word of God, so too in Islam. Needless to say, Saudi Arabia has pioneered the literal, inerrant Word of God approach to the Qu'ran but only since in the mid-18th century (and, of course, there has only been a "Saudi" Arabia since 1932). Just as Evangelicalism is a modern phenomenon, so too is Wahabbi Islam. Moreover, because of its wealth (which mostly comes from us buying their oil), Saudi Arabia has had a rather unfortunate influence on Islam worldwide. Prior to that wealth, the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance was a completely fringe freak show in the Islamic world. Imagine if snake-handling Fundamentalists suddenly had unlimited wealth with which they could fund churches and universities the world over. In fifty years, it would have a profound impact Evangelicalism (to say nothing of make death by snake bite far more common). While something similar has happened in Islam, there is still no one Islam but many Islams.

Regarding the OP, there was a backlash for good reason. Many Muslims would not literally interpret that portion of the Qu'ran that discusses disciplining wives and would view any sort of Muslim Domestic Discipline just as curiously as most Christians view Christian Domestic Discipline.

  • Like 3
Link to post
19 hours ago, natty said:

Nor do most Muslims. People in the US talk about Sharia law as if it is one thing upon which all Muslims agree. It is not. There are four main schools of interpretation in Sunni Islam and endless variations from there--to say nothing of the wide variety of Shi'a schools. And don't even get me started on the Sufis. Just as there are Mainline Protestants who do not interpret the Bible literally or view it as inerrant (a 19th-century concept) while there are Evangelicals who do view it as the inerrant, literal Word of God, so too in Islam. Needless to say, Saudi Arabia has pioneered the literal, inerrant Word of God approach to the Qu'ran but only since in the mid-18th century (and, of course, there has only been a "Saudi" Arabia since 1932). Just as Evangelicalism is a modern phenomenon, so too is Wahabbi Islam. Moreover, because of its wealth (which mostly comes from us buying their oil), Saudi Arabia has had a rather unfortunate influence on Islam worldwide. Prior to that wealth, the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance was a completely fringe freak show in the Islamic world. Imagine if snake-handling Fundamentalists suddenly had unlimited wealth with which they could fund churches and universities the world over. In fifty years, it would have a profound impact Evangelicalism (to say nothing of make death by snake bite far more common). While something similar has happened in Islam, there is still no one Islam but many Islams.

Regarding the OP, there was a backlash for good reason. Many Muslims would not literally interpret that portion of the Qu'ran that discusses disciplining wives and would view any sort of Muslim Domestic Discipline just as curiously as most Christians view Christian Domestic Discipline.

Thank you for your interesting and most informative comment. I thought I knew a lot about Islam. The idea of many interpretations of Islam other than Sunni/Shia is somewhat new to me. The Saudi's I have known were very conservative. I have never met a "liberal" Muslim. 

I have a question. Is there any Muslin country that would prosecute a man for whipping/beating his wife's back as a punishment he felt she deserved. Would the police help her? Would her parents or brothers help her?

Link to post
11 hours ago, ChuckStern said:

I have a question. Is there any Muslin country that would prosecute a man for whipping/beating his wife's back as a punishment he felt she deserved. Would the police help her? Would her parents or brothers help her?

Off the top of my head, I'd say certainly Turkey, Tunisia, Palestine (West Bank, but maybe not Gaza), Bangladesh, Jordan, Lebanon (which is constitutionally a majority Christian country but in reality very much majority Muslim). I'm probably missing some. In other Muslim countries, probably the issue would be complicated by what part of the country one is in. I would probably have included Indonesia in the list, but in certain parts of the country that are very conservative, it would probably depend on what judge you get. Just as here in the US, we have certain parts of the country that are more conservative than others, and often you're at the mercy of which judge you happen to come before, the same is true Muslim countries. If I remember correctly, in some Muslim countries, one is able to present their case to a judge who is from the legal school to which you subscribe. It's also complicated by the fact that due to historical reasons that have favored maintaining oligarchic structures, wealth protects one more from legal consequences than without it (something, again, that is familiar to most Americans, just not to the same extent...yet). So if you're rich and believe in a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, you're probably able to get away with beating your wife than a poor guy is. Obviously, just as it is here in the U.S., domestic violence is an issue in any country, Muslim countries included.

And yes, a brother or father would often be the one to step in. I've had both a Palestinian and a Sa'udi tell me the exact same thing: no one would think of beating my sister because he would then have to deal with me and my family. That's more likely the way it would be dealt with rather than the police.

11 hours ago, JenniferAnn said:

From the research I've been doing Islam has 72 schools of thought. To compare, Christianity has over 300 denominations.

How do you define a "school of thought" or denomination? When I was doing graduate work in 1990s, I saw figures of anything from 30-50,000 Protestant denominations alone. But then, definitions of denomination do differ.

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Maybe that will fly in Qatar, but lousy advice for us here on this forum.  Under US laws, and the laws of numerous other countries for that matter, absent consent from the wife, the advice from the Qatari sociologist is little more than advice on how to be a proper spousal abuser.          

 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Rand E said:

Maybe that will fly in Qatar, but lousy advice for us here on this forum.  Under US laws, and the laws of numerous other countries for that matter, absent consent from the wife, the advice from the Qatari sociologist is little more than advice on how to be a proper spousal abuser.          

 

Agree.

So much regarding any Faith depends on the locality of the people. Local traditions clearly rule be it with folks in some States in the USA, or with folks of other faiths around the world. For those of Christian faith we cannot deny the shameful years of history where so much abuse was going on. And even worse as we have become more enlightened some of that has been proven to continue in the last years. 

My point is: Its so much easier to point fingers at what folks of other faiths (from our own) may do wrongly then to denounce all CP that is not consensual. 

Link to post

It's always unwise and often just plain wrong to view what one individual (regardless of their qualifications) has to say as an example of what Group X believes. I don't know any muslim man or woman who would not consider non-consensual striking as anything other than abuse. I know there are people who hold contrary beliefs but I know I can't logically generalize about them as "muslims" any more than I could about "christians" or "Americans."

As others have said here, let's focus on what is good or bad practice (that is, in this case, consent or non-consent) and leave aside labels.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/9/2019 at 9:03 AM, DaddySpanksCT said:

It's always unwise and often just plain wrong to view what one individual (regardless of their qualifications) has to say as an example of what Group X believes. I don't know any muslim man or woman who would not consider non-consensual striking as anything other than abuse. I know there are people who hold contrary beliefs but I know I can't logically generalize about them as "muslims" any more than I could about "christians" or "Americans."

As others have said here, let's focus on what is good or bad practice (that is, in this case, consent or non-consent) and leave aside labels.

Yes.  Definitely.  I try to stay focused on the ethics and practices that we have in common here on the forum.  Whatever our disagreements, we are like birds of a feather compared to the awful shit that happens out there in other parts of the world.  

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

As others have said, the key is consent. Some of us are drawn to DD. For me, it feels as natural as wanting a partner to begin with. That said, I know plenty of other people who find the very idea of adult to adult discipline horrifying. I have also met many men who prefer the exact opposite dynamic, where their wife is in charge. To legislate decisions that should be made with much discussion between two consenting partners, regarding a VERY intimate activity, is preposterous. It's simply legalizing spousal abuse of women and telling men who want to be on the receiving end of discipline that they are defective and worthy of shame. 

 

P.S.

I consider myself an agnostic anti-theist and this is just one example of WHY. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...