User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
The majority of the opinions you posted. they said the wife could be either disciplined or her support withdrawn.
One of the opinions you posted said that force was allowed, but there is no indication as to how prevalent that opinion is.
Personally, I hold that that opinion is wrong and it does not fit the facts.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Actually one can.
Actually no, it is way way way more than that.
If her marriage had been consumated, she could then divorce and remarry her first husband.
without it being consumated she cannot remarry her first husband. So we know that even if he did hit her, he did not sexually force himself on her.
Secondly there is the principle from hadith where if there are two paths that a perso can take that are both equally halaal, the easier option should be taken. If forcing was allowed, atleast in some of the circumstances it may have been considered easier and the prophet
would have mentioned what was halaal. Except that was not the case.
The fact that witholding sex was discussed and forcing it was not shows how it was not considered the thing to do to force it, otherwise it would have been discussed when it was being discussed as part of other matters.
The matter was brought to the Prophet (saw), and there is no recorded tradition that recorded him
saying that forcing sex was allowed. He was asked to specifically address the circumstances and his answer was not that, but that it is sinful to withold it and that the woman cannot remarry her first husband unless she has consumated her marriage with the new husband (and then subsequently got divorced).
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Hmmmm still avoiding my question - what did the majority say and where?
Regarding my posts, you seem to have mis-recollected what I said - here they are again for your info, nicely highlighted for you in case you don't have your specs with you:
If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband's consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoys her by FORCE... THE HEDAYA COMMENTARY ON THE ISLAMIC LAWS (reprint 1994) Translated by Charles Hamilton, p. 194
The followers of Imam Abu Hanifa said, "The right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually. She on the other hand does not have the right to force him to have sex with her except once [in a lifetime]. But he must, from a religious point of view, have sex with her to protect her from being morally corrupt."
'Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Mazahib al-Arba'a, Dar al-Kutub al- 'Elmeyah, 1990, vol. 4, p. 9
Ibn Taymiyah was asked what a husband should do if his wife refuses him when he asks for intimacy. He replied: It is not permissible for her to rebel against him or to withhold herself from him, rather if she refuses him and persists in doing so, he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury, and she is not entitled to spending or a share of his time [in the case of plural marriage].” Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/279.
And he was asked about a man who has a wife who is rebellious and refuses intimacy – does she forfeit the right to maintenance and clothing, and what should she do? He replied: She forfeits her right to maintenance and clothing if she does not let him be intimate with her. He has the right to hit her if she persists in being defiant. It is not permissible for her to refuse intimacy if he asks for that, rather she is disobeying Allaah and His Messenger (by refusing). In al-Saheeh it says: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, the One Who is in heaven will be angry with her until morning comes.” From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/278. The hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 1736.
I've also read the full article of Kawthari - notice this statement:
If the wife is not in a state to engage in sexual activities and has a genuine and valid reason, and the husband forces her, then he will be sinful.
Nowhere else does he state the husband is sinful or it is haram - he appears to be very political with the terms, using a lot of shoulds but only sinful in this case! Why? If it is wrong it is wrong regardless if she is in a state to engage sexual activities or not as you are arguing! It makes me very suspicious and annoyed when scholars are not clear with the sharia, don't quote classical scholars and what they said - it is not clear and transparent!
Right, so two of the sources say that.
I still say they are wrong and do not comply with the primary sources.
Looking at Islam Online:
There is also the hadith "There is to be no harm done or reciprocation of harm".
Thirdly, it is suggested that if the verses on nushuz are used as guidelines, after "darb" the next step mentioned is sending for an arbiter for each person and not using force (the step after that is divorce).
I am not a scholar and cannot prove anything, but if the majority scholars had said what you suggest, then it would be the common understanding. It isn't.
All I was suggesting was that because it was in a book, it does not make it the popular opinion (or even right for that matter).
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You have yet to bring even one classical source to say other than that. Modernist citations are irrelevant - they permit all things western to their views are irrelevant. If evidences can be interpreted the way they suggest, provide citations to credible scholars and the discussion can then precede as to which view is stronger.
Aside from criticism of citation of weak problematic hadith, the problem with this principle is the word SHOULD!
I've already mentioned this point when I state force can be used to limits specified in ahadith. It does not prove force cannot be used - it specifies the limits.
It is irrelevant what happens after darb - the darb step itself allows force - you don't need to look at texts after that!
You've not provided any mainstream opinion - quoting scholars who skirt around the issue, talking about SHOULDS etc The discussion is not the niceties of what one should do, as I have already stated but you seem to have missed, the discussion is what is he ALLOWED to do. An important distinction. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what the majority say - whether allowed or not - it is important what the strongest understanding is as that is closest to what Allah ordered us to do.
Agreed - but it at least indicates what the experts who have researched this matter have conlcuded - modernists who are influenced by the West are a waste of time as they are biased and agenda driven! Classical scholars are neutral as they don't have these kind of agendas making them more trustworthy! But even amongst them, the strongest view should be followed and not the weakest.
Pages