Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
14ers

Marital Rape; A Husband's Right

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

No sorry, i dont believe that to be the case. The Quran talks about striking in the context of a specific circumstance. That the allowance is tied to a specific circumstance is an indication that it is not a general principle that can be followed, other wise it would be more logical for the Quran to say 'and if your wives are disobedient do this', without attaching it to a particular circumstance in which it is controlled but allowed. The Sharia is not an objective, timeless, monolithic entity, it is a way of understanding what laws can be implimented which could be reasonably understood to be Islamic in nature, it is not infallible because it always necessarily includes interpretation and reasoning abilities and that is why there are different versions of it.

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high.

Qur'an 4:34

Disobedience = Not allowing your husband

You said "and if your wives are disobedient do this...", in fact in the Holy Qur'an says "As for those whom you fear disobedience..." and then goes through the actions. Not much of a difference in my eyes.

The husband can now admonish them, not sleep with her in bed (alone) and after that beat her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high.

Qur'an 4:34

Disobedience = Not allowing your husband

You said "and if your wives are disobedient do this...", in fact in the Holy Qur'an says "As for those whom you fear disobedience..." and then goes through the actions. Not much of a difference in my eyes.

The husband can now admonish them, not sleep with her in bed (alone) and after that beat her.

Brother, no they can't, actually.

The disobedience here is not referring to disobedience in regular matters. The actual meaning of it is much more severe. This is the problem with taking a translation of the Quran and trying to implement your own laws using it.

"in your eyes"?

Are you defining Sharia by your own tafseer of Quranic verses?

You cannot be saying things like this that Tafseer does not support. Your position is based on your own interpretation of the verse and in what situations it is allowed to be applied in, while the truth is otherwise. I advise you to go and read what our maraajeh have said about the conditions required for the last clause to take effect.

(Wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

One last example to reiterate my point. Again, please read my above posts to help with the understanding.

 

In this case, these buildings represent the types of marriages.

 

No Spousal Rights Upheld:

 

dirt-rubble-449501.jpg

 

With this type of building, it is impossible to enjoy from it because it is utterly broken and unlivable. This represents a marriage that has failed utterly because the couple have gone under the 'Sharia law' line (refer to my first post).

 

Only Spousal Rights Upheld:

 

2hwcw11.jpg

 

With this one, it is very uncomfortable to live in because the 'inhabitants' (spouses) would be inside a skeleton of a building. One which would not protect them from the elements, nor would they be able to cook food or use the lights due to lack of electricity or a built kitchen, etc. Life would be very hard for the inhabitants of this one, but it would be possible to live in very poor condition. This represents a marriage built solely of Sharia law and nothing further.

 

Spousal Rights Upheld + Practice of Islamic Marriage Moral Prescriptions:

 

BurjAlarab.png

 

Only this type of building will carry any benefit for the inhabitants, because only with the this type of building can the inhabitants live inside it and enjoy a comfortable quality of life with complete infrastructure, food, etc. This represents a perfect Islamic marriage in which marriage morals above and beyond the bare necessities are put into practice. This represents a marriage based on mutual love, compassion, kindness, tolerance, patience, compromise...

 

This is ultimately a type of marriage (and the only type) which attains the pleasure of Allah and a marriage which will help the two spouses succeed in this world and the next.

 

(wasalam)

(salam)

 

perhaps it's more like this in reality .

 

 

Before Marriage ;

 

 

After Marriage ;

 

 

 

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

Brother, no they can't, actually.

The disobedience here is not referring to disobedience in regular matters. The actual meaning of it is much more severe. This is the problem with taking a translation of the Quran and trying to implement your own laws using it.

"in your eyes"?

Are you defining Sharia by your own tafseer of Quranic verses?

You cannot be saying things like this that Tafseer does not support. Your position is based on your own interpretation of the verse and in what situations it is allowed to be applied in, while the truth is otherwise. I advise you to go and read what our maraajeh have said about the conditions required for the last clause to take effect.

(Wasalam)

You think I talked without looking at a hadith? Did you not see the hadith I post in the last page? By the way, it is a VERY serious matter for a wife to deny her husband.

And I have already seen what Sayed Ali al-Sistani (h.a) said.

If you want references, just ask.

They call me Mr Reference for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam to all, 

 

I suggest we calm it down a little and not make this into an XX vs. XY battle.

 

Br. DV, yes marital rape exists, as do other forms of violence against women. Just because no sisters here will volunteer to mention an occasion where it happened to them does not mean it does not exist. I am 99.999% sure that if it happened, probably noone would know except their immeditate family (maybe). 

 

We should be thinking about how do we make our communities and marriages stronger by addressing the needs of both men and women in marriages and we can take a lesson from the marriage of Imam Ali(a.s) and Fatima(a.s). There is a very nice and inspiring video about the biography of the Lady of Light(a.s) by Sayid Ammar, which includes details of the marriage of Imam Ali(a.s) and Fatima(a.s). I suggest that anyone who has time should watch and get points from it that they can apply in their own life. 

 

 

I see bro, thank you for the clarification. And I have another question for you if you don't mind.

 

Have you also heard of any husbands who got raped by their wives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Br, 

 

No. But I know alot of them who wish this would happen, looool. 

( I actually never asked because brs are not supposed to talk about what they do with their wives). 

But on a serious note, Allah(s.w.a) created men and women differently, physically and psychologically 

So what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for the other. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feminists don't really have what is called "common sense".  One can't argue with a feminist.   For all the bachelors out there, just pray you never get married to a feminist.    

I don't think you understand what the word feminism means.

I am not sure some of the men in this thread understand that having sex when not aroused is physically painful for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand what the word feminism means.

I am not sure some of the men in this thread understand that having sex when not aroused is physically painful for women.

You can be sure: they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prophet said, “Three people are cruel: …a person who has sex with his wife before foreplay.”

He also said “When anyone of you has sex with his wife, then he should not go to her like birds; instead he should be slow and delaying.”

Imam 'Ali says, “When you intend to have sex with your wife, do not rush because the woman (also) has needs (which should be fulfilled).”

So foreplay I.e. she gets aroused. There is an answer for everything ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prophet said, “Three people are cruel: …a person who has sex with his wife before foreplay.”

He also said “When anyone of you has sex with his wife, then he should not go to her like birds; instead he should be slow and delaying.”

Imam 'Ali says, “When you intend to have sex with your wife, do not rush because the woman (also) has needs (which should be fulfilled).”

So foreplay I.e. she gets aroused. There is an answer for everything ^_^

 

Yes.

If men want to demand sex from their wives, husbands should absolutely be willing to engage in the amount of foreplay it takes for the woman to aroused.  If you satisfy your wife's needs, it will not be a chore for her, and she will want to have sex, not just tolerate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic under discussion is not ladies who refuse specifically relations prior to arousal.

The topic pertains to ladies who refuse relations qua relations.

They have their reasons of course.

The question is of the legitimacy of their reasons - and, perhaps more specifically, legitimacy with respect to Islamic teaching.

 

That a man yearns coitus and a woman refuses to yield proves that love is predicated on internal conflict. In other words, love is a social construct that is manufactured from an underlying selfishness of human beings.

Which is why love is something completely imaginary and a covert curse.

 

My solution: all men set out a quick, temporary contract to engage solely in their individual pleasures, and then move on with their life. Permanent contracts should be outlawed to stop perpetuating the falsehood that is "love."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That a man yearns coitus and a woman refuses to yield proves that love is predicated on internal conflict. In other words, love is a social construct that is manufactured from an underlying selfishness of human beings.

Which is why love is something completely imaginary and a covert curse.

 

My solution: all men set out a quick, temporary contract to engage solely in their individual pleasures, and then move on with their life. Permanent contracts should be outlawed to stop perpetuating the falsehood that is "love."

Paki parents?

Jk :p

I remember when I used to think marriage should be haraam. Im guess in you've had a lot of conditional love in your life but maybe you should befriend your local sheikh and learn what true love is like :Inshallah. Love for the sake of :Allah is the best thing you will ever experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The topic pertains to ladies who refuse relations qua relations.

 

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Jebreil

 

 

The state of affairs of a ’s being is nothing but the qua relations  qua F .

The trope involved, a ’s particular F -ness, is what, if added to a , gives us the new object qua F .

is what qua and qua and no ladies have in common.

is what qua and qua and no ladies  have in common 

 

is qua its intrinsic nature ,

Qua relations are model constituents .

​Qua relations are part of ordinary relations .

 

A property of an object a  is intrinsic to iff a ’s being is only a matter of how a  is and not at all how

other objects are, a property could have if it were the only existing thing.

Exemplification of intrinsic properties is ordinary relations.

 

a qua  F, for any property  F intrinsic to  a, is the mereological fusion of  a’s spatio-temporal parts with F.

 

(wasalam)

Edited by :Sami II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Not least because the conclusion involves a term 'love' which is absent in the premise, and this is a fallacious inference, and hence no proof at all.

No.

Please understand. A relationship negates love. A relationship is intrinsically based on a conflict of interest but with a contrived semblance of compromise, lest our true nature manifests itself through bloodshed and hate. Thus, a relationship precludes the utopian thought of love. It is inconsistent with human nature at its primal.

The fear of rape, the very anticipation of an ugly confrontation in a relationship evinces the futility of forging a harmonious "bond."

It is a somewhat a Marxist perspective on relationship structures, though in a different context, except I go further by calling love an abomination to common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Please understand. A relationship negates love. A relationship is intrinsically based on a conflict of interest but with a contrived semblance of compromise, lest our true nature manifests itself through bloodshed and hate. Thus, a relationship precludes the utopian thought of love. It is inconsistent with human nature at its primal.

The fear of rape, the very anticipation of an ugly confrontation in a relationship evinces the futility of forging a harmonious "bond."

It is a somewhat a Marxist perspective on relationship structures, though in a different context, except I go further by calling love an abomination to common sense.

Bro, CALM DOWN. I'm sorry your parents didn't love you as a child. It's life! Learn to cope with it or be destroyed as you currently are, like fish gasping for water on land. Your trying so hard to disprove something that is so evident. But you rationally can't, as love stems from experience. For you, love is false. Khalas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I am rather surprised at your belief that the sentences you have strung together prove anything about the notion of love.

It's staring you in the face, Jebreil. It's as empirical as the need for a husband to exert his right when his selfish need is to experience pleasure. It's as empirical as the need for a wife to suppress her feelings against her husband for the selfish sake of her children.

Selfishness is necessarily a dirty word. Most of the time it denotes pragmatism without anyone actually realising it fully.

I also think it is not relevant to the OP whether love exists or not.

It is relevant insofar as it provides a solution to the issue of rape within a relationship. If relationships are banned, marital rape is no longer a concern. We wouldn't even be engaging in this discussion in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if there is disagreement over what constitutes legitimate grounds for refusal? Clearly if the wife is very sick the sensible husband won't even try. But what if she is only slightly ill, or what if she is utterly exhausted from her day's work? Wouldn't a sensible husband be sympathetic to his wife's needs too? Wouldn't sensitivity to her needs fall under his obligation to protect her from harm?

 

There's already something very wrong with the marriage if sexual relationship is viewed as an obligation and not as something married people enjoy doing.

 

In a very good marriage, these sort of questions doesn't arise. You generally don't doubt your spouse when he/she says they are tired or ill because they generally don't lie or make excuses.

 

If one side (husband or wife) is not in the mood, then either you forget about it or one person has to be persuaded to change his/her mind. Using forceful methods don't really work because no one is having fun if you are forced to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: Is it permissible for a wife to excuse herself from participation in sexual intercourse when she is exhausted, or when she undergoes a discouraging psychological state?


A: If sexual intercourse causes her too much uneasiness, she has the right to abstain from it in accordance with Allah’s (the most exalted) say, {He has not laid upon you any hardship in religion}. (78:22)


 


http://english.bayynat.org/Jurisprudence/sex.htm


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...