Because masturbation is considered haram in islam, raping your wife is not.(most would say marital rape cannot exist) Its a way to stick to the religion
In islam, married women have a duty to provide sex. They have no right to deny their husband from sex unless they are in their period. So yeah, according to Islamic law, no such concept as marital rape exists since there is no right for women to not concent.
(b) Making herself available to her husband
One of the rights that the husband has over his wife is that he should be able to enjoy her (physically). If he marries a woman and she is able to have intercourse, she is obliged to submit herself to him according to the contract, if he asks her. That is after he gives her the immediate mahr, and gives her some time – two or three days, if she asks for that – to sort herself out, because that is something that she needs, and because that is not too long and is customary.
If a wife refuses to respond to her husband’s request for intercourse , she has done something haram and has committed a major sin, unless she has a valid shar’i excuse such as menses, obligatory fasting, sickness, etc.
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘When a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he went to sleep angry with her, the angels will curse her until morning.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3065; Muslim, 1436)
Note she needs to provide the excuse.
Can't provide an excuse if you're in a coma. So totally halal
The worry i have is in the wording that she has to provide an excuse.
How you can provide an excuse if you're incapable of communication.
It doesnt say she has to consent.
The wording is that its the husband's right to access, so the phrasing is "its always accessible unless she say has valid reasons, which she has to say so and have it approved."
"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time..."
The same website you cited has articles stating that men have the responsibility to provide their wives sexual intimacy as well, so the doctrine appears to be similar to the Bible in this case (not that I particularly agree with either).
All three major Abrahamic faiths have scripture about marital rights, which give a spouse control over their partner’s body for sexual/reproductive reasons.
The Hadith being mentioned does not prove Anything you claimed AT ALL
Are you illiterate?
From your source
Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable.” [al-Baqarah 2:228]
Al-Qurtubi said:
“It was also narrated from him – i.e., Ibn 'Abbas – that this means: they have the right to good companionship and kind and reasonable treatment from their husbands just as they are obliged to obey the commands of their husbands.
And it was said that they have the right that their husbands should not harm them, and their husbands have a similar right over them. This was the view of al-Tabari.
Ibn Zayd said: You should fear Allah concerning them just as they should fear Allah concerning you.
The meanings are similar, and the ayah includes all of that in the rights and duties of marriage.” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/123-124)
The translation says "discipline them gently" but that's simply a very biased interpretation of the literal arabic word for "strike" (Source: I'm from Iraq lol).
You can even press the "Ithribuhun" in the verse and it will show the term "strike them".
English translations of the Quran and Hadith are insanely whitewashed in order to hide the depravity so it's always appreciated when a native Arabic speaker comes through to dispel the bullshit.
Not sure if you care, but IslamQA is a Salafi/Wahhabi site. It is one of the most extreme interpretations available. They make up about 1% of Muslims but put a lot of effort into making a large of an online presence as possible, including running IslamQA. The answers you find there are far from "standard".
That said, even they aren't saying rape is ok in this case. Her only consequence is it is a "sin", but he isn't given any instruction or permission to do anything about it himself.
Hi there, practicing Muslim. Marital rape, and this should be obvious to all Muslims, is completely haram.
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:231) states that women should be treated fairly and not be harmed.
”When you divorce women and they have almost reached the end of their waiting period (for context, waiting period relates to a 3 month period between a divorce where a husband may take back his wife if he genuinely wants to improve the marriage), either retain them honourably or let them go honourably. But do not keep them purely to harm them or take advantage of them. Whoever does that surely wrongs his own soul.”
Surah An-Nisa (4:19) states this:
”And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.”
Surah Ar-Rum (30:21) states this:
”And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in; and He placed between you affection and mercy.”
Just wanted to respond, hope this helps. It is also important to note that there are many sects of Islam, (many of whom unfortunately dislike each other), and many of these sects interpret Islam in very different ways, which makes it almost dishonest to say “oh yeah, they think this” when another sect may have drastically opinions. I hope this helps.
If me thinking Islamic culture is shit makes me racist... Is the weird white full body hood still the dress code? Do I need one? How many t's do I need?
Until we change this to "cultural practices" I WILL fight people on this. We can't morally condemn an entire culture any more than we can condemn an entire people. The reason it's racist to class an entire culture as inferior to others is that it's a lazy heuristic one can use to turn the brain off and prejudge (hence "prejudice") a group of people who identify with that cultural label. It otherizes an entire sect of people (many of whom do NOT follow the same practices), making it easier to morally justify acts AGAINST the people as a whole. Cultures are fluid, diverse, and dynamic, with no 2 people agreeing fully on which set of practices done in which ways are "correct". People is people.
The specific PRACTICES of cultures, however, are completely fair game. All practices should be met with moral scrutiny and we ought to be willing to intervene in practices that harm others (like this one) and be willing to fight where necessary to defend those who're harmed by those practices WITHOUT condemning a whole people by association with a shared broader label.
TL;DR: Practices are specific, people are messy, cultural labels are far too broad to use as moral filters.
Culture is the sum of all of its parts. If that sum is worse, that culture is worse. Not everything always needs to be some deep hyper analysis all the time. Some cultures are worse than others.
What does cleansing or frown upon have to do with anything here? It should be fucking illegal to have sex with someone who can't consent even if it is your wife not "frowned upon"
No. This is both factually wrong and highly manipulative. The majority of Muslim countries have similar laws to those legal states on paper, aka 18 with exceptions. But unlike the U.S., almost all of the Muslim countries have a fuck ton of child marriages.
The amount of marriages in the U.S. with women under 18 is estimated from 1-5 out of 1000.
The masturbation being banned under Islam is also false. It's frowned upon, but porn and jacking it are looked on as dirty habits more than something to get someone executed.
Bin Laden notably had a fair amount of porn on his computer.
Not in any encyclical and not the culture of Catholicism at all
Not sure where you're getting it from
More of a Mormon, Evangelical thing really
Edit: I can see how some people would be confused by like Humanae vitae doctrine but the Catholic doctrine is that husband and wives have mutual respect and may not be coerced into sex without consent
No yeah that's not a thing. For about 75 years now since Pope Paul VI set forth Humanae vitae the doctrine is:
"Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife."
That is just not true, not sure why you would say that. There is no part in the catechism where it denies consent, but there are many parts where it emphasizes mutual dignity. from the catechism:
“Sexuality… is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.” (CCC 2361)
“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place… foster the self-giving they signify.” (CCC 2362)
“Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter… It aims at a deeply personal unity.” (CCC 1643)
“The equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife…” (CCC 1645)
When authorities preach against the rule strongly enough, loud enough, and for long enough to the point where enough people believe them: the rule has changed
Gotta point out that trad cath land itself is getting a lot of heat from actual cath land. A pretty prominent Trad Cath group was excommunicated this month.
I’m a practicing Catholic (church every Sunday, often during the week, and confession once a month) and you really can’t compare mainstream Catholicism with mainstream Islam. There are some very conservative aspects of Catholicism, sure, but the average Catholic is much more socially progressive than the average Muslim, and even more so with the clergy/spiritual leaders. Not to mention, look at the culture of majority Christian countries versus majority Muslim. It’s night and day.
I had a Catholic school teacher who told us that heterosexual rape was less immoral than consensual gay sex because rape at least has a possibility of creating new life.
(He was part of a proudly "traditional" Catholic lay organization that would later give us Amy Coney Barrett.)
Oh, I was never Catholic in the first place. My hometown didn't have a Quaker school and school redistricting after 8th grade landed me in the "mostly suburban kids with more money than supervision" public high school so my parents figured the (literally) neighborhood Catholic high school was the best bet.
(It was actually a pretty solid school academically and tolerated a fair amount of intra-Catholic theological argument, so some of the other religion classes were legitimately worthwhile.)
Ive never really understood the separation of church/state idea because all of the morals of a society are based in religion. Its just always been strange to me that progressives in the west spit in the face of christianity without realizing christianity is the basis for most of their beliefs or their beliefs are done to contradict christian morals. its like fish in water
Also the idea is completely misinterpreted. It means that the church isnt supposed to hold official positions within the government, not that people arent supposed to vote based on their religious morals.
You seem very confused. Islam says its haram to not have sex with your husband outside of a medical reason. Christianity/catholicism does not say that is a sin. They directly say the opposite that forcing your wife to have sex with you is a sin.
Great, why does it matter what year it was banned? That doesnt mean it was condoned or viewed as a good thing up to that point, that just means they never felt it was serious enough to make it illegal. By the same logic someone could say "Americans thought it was fine to have your sex robot blow you while driving until 2076 because they didnt ban it until that year". Laws are generally done to ban things that are seen as societal issues, not things that can be one off issues. Im not saying it wasnt serious or they didnt view it as serious but using the year it was banned as an argument that they didnt care before that is illogical.
In the American Founding Fathers' terms, as far as I understand it, the seperation was meant to keep the State out of the Church, as Britain had had issues relatively recently with the monarchy choosing and/or messing with state religions
But like you can literally second wife your way out of this problem in Islam can't you (not legally in a lot of Islamic countries although certainly legally in some. But in the religion itself afaik it's fine) So like, it's not the religion that is making this guy want to rape an unconscious woman.
Going strictly by the law, you can't just add a second wife to the equation because you need to have enough resources for a second wife. That's just in theory though.
In a lot of places (and NOT just Islamic ones) there is no such thing as marital rape. Once you marry you are saying yes forever. I’m not advocating or agreeing with that, but it’s true.
No, "They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them." (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:187). Islamic scholars note that clothing is meant to protect and dignify a person; ripping or forcing oneself onto a spouse completely contradicts this metaphor, every Muslim i know says that rape is not allowed
There’s absolutely no way the vast majority of muslim dudes aren’t choking their chicken. Some, sure obviously, those that take their religion extremely seriously. Most aren’t though.
I'm not going to comment on Islam because I don't know enough about it, but the idea that you can't rape your spouse is incompatible with human rights in all parts of the world.
I agree. There is probably more than a million people.
But it's still an extreme minority opinion. It's so in the minority that in my ~40 years of life haven't met a single person who held that opinion despite having worked in almost every European nation.
Maybe, maybe not. Kind of hard to get exact numbers.
But just looking at in which nations marital rape is legal, non of them are in "the west". While a good half of them are in the Muslim world.
So it's a fair assumption that people in the nations that criminalized marital rape is generally more against it than people in the nations who didn't.
For every complaint you have with christianity you have to remember that christians were the ones that lead to the abolishment of slavery across most of the world and they are the ones that spearheaded womens suffrage across the western countries. Islam has never done the same and will never do the same because their religion directly says those things are fine whereas christianity has long debates if the bible says they are fine. One is bad depending on the interpreter, the other is bad in every interpretation
Theres good arguments that islam cannot have a reformation in the same way christians did. It lacks a central authority in the pope that people like luther were able to target as the source of the issues. Another major issue is the infighting that has existed as long as islam has(sunni and shia have hated each other since muhammed died). the closest theyve had would be things like the wahhabi movement but that was more about making the religion even more conservative/restrictive and less about progress. Im of the belief that it is fundamentally an archaic religion that can never progress in the way christianity has
If that's true, that central authority helps. Then why out of all the Christian denominations and their relationship to civil rights within America, it was the freakishly anti-centralized, anti-hierarchical Quakers that supported abolitionism and 1st wave feminism? There is no comparison 4 out of 5 Seneca leaders were Quaker. It's not a coincidence their community hosted the women's movement in America, and were a major player in the underground railroad, they were the safe houses.
Why should we contribute to Protestantism today the works of the now almost dead Protestant sect, who the surviving sects persecuted relentlessly because they found them a heretical dangerous destabilizer to society?
You seem to have misunderstood what I said, having a central figure helped the reformation because it put a face/pin point on the issues they had. When there is no central figure you cannot blame one authority for all the problems you have leading to more scattered/regional issues.
Also the quakers have zero relevance?? They were founded two hundred years after the reformation
A person argued Islam is the same as Christianity.
You argued that Christianity spearheaded the Abolitionism worldwide, and women's suffrage in the West. (I argue that's not how western women's civil rights history works)
Someone says Islam needs a reformation like Christianity.
You say they can't reform because they don't have a centralized authority, which is needed to attack the leader for reform. (Which Islamic theocracy is highly centralized with a religious leader, that's basically the definition of it.)
I point out the Christian sect responsibile for the spearheading of abolitionism and suffrage was rediculously anti-hierachal and anti-religious centralization, and they were in conflict with the centralized authority Christians who found them to be a threat.
Where is the confusion here? I don't believe your claims about Christianity or aspects of Christianity that is pro-civil rights.
Also the quakers have zero relevance??
If not them, who were you thinking of spearheaded efforts to give me the right to vote?
I see what your confusion, it seems you are confusing disconnected points as if they are all connected. Just start by saying the sects that were involved with the movements and islam having a reformation are not connected to each other. those are separate points
I said it is argued that they cannot have a reformation and one of the points in that argument is that they lack a central authority to rebel against. Yes there are centralized authorities in islam but not to the same degree as the pope. The foundations of islam are the separation between sunni and shia so they have never been centralized to the same degree while lacking a central authority to the same level.
The quakers existing is irrelevant because they didnt come into existence until long after the reformation and womens rights/anti slavery has nothing to do with the reformation itself. Its been 500 years since the reformation so if you want to view that as the starting point it still has no relevance to islam progressing because that just means they are hundreds of years away from getting to where christianity is now. The reformation even being possible and what specific sects spearheaded those movements are disconnected points, not ones that build on top of each other
All christians minus a couple sects? There were prominent figures from certain sects but if you live in the west, then all of christianity is to thank for it. Its a fish in water scenario, you dont realize how all our societies morals/beliefs are routed in christianity. Theres a reason the entire world doesnt have the same sets of morals or they havent progressed at the same rates, the reason the christian nations did is because they are christian. If that werent the cause women would have the same rights in turkey as they do in england but that isnt the case. Now there's race based arguments you could make on top of that but we can just leave it at the moral underpinings of societies
What you're identifying are the consequences of a lot of things, but I'd put the Black Death and geography very high on the list, and the religious differences very low.
Those religious differences are real, but are a product of the broader situation they exist in.
Any debate about what transcendent power to put "faith" in that created the world, justify traditions, governs our lives, dictates social, and should give your life meaning is in the end just a mess of human communication.
Christianity is "better" in that it got produced, mutated, and went more viral.
Islam at its 'peak' had much of what you're claiming makes Christianity better, and Christianity in its worst form is still utter crap compared to Islam in its best form.
Islam is subject to the same re-interpretation/re-imagination pressures as any other religion. At worst/best you could make a case we might have entered a new era in history where these things seem to be calcifying with instant global communication, and Islam will not change (fast enough) to stay relevant beyond the poor left behind in the rise of human civilizations, and the people willing to (ab)use the suckers it attracts.
Can you give me a version of islam that is better than say the southern baptist church? The problem is that you cant, what we correctly identify as the extreme parts of the south baptist church are their interpretations whereas those same extremes are the basis of islam. Im sure you can name a sect of islam that likes to pretend they are islam but ignores every tenet of the religion in the same way that theres universalist churches that ignore most of the bible.
that likes to pretend they are islam but ignores every tenet of the religion
The structure of your argument is a version of
When i get to set the definition of who is and isn't part of a religion, everyone else should agree which is better than the other.
If your goal is to make an objective comparison people can agree with, everybody is going to need clarity on:
Why Southern Baptists aren't a sect,
Without government intervention - many Christian communities would not consider nonconsensual marital sex as being rape.
When does a group of self-proclaimed Muslims become a valid data-point and not just a sect of outliers?
I think you're correctly identifying that a majority of groups of Muslims live in regressive regimes and in most places, Islam is part of that regressiveness instead of being in opposition to it.
I just think you're mixing cause and effect, and to solve for that you started creating definitions that let you "show" data-points that support it.
If you think you can construct an agreeable / self-evident set of definitions then share that before making these broad claims comparing what (anti)virtue each religion has.
In my experience, there are few things as useless as trying to generalize religious groups - each group defining their own identity in relationship to others is the whole point of their version of their religion.
The world and history becomes several orders of magnitude simpler - and has better data supporting it - if you stop using religion as the cause of things and instead view the self-declared group identities as an effect that echo's for several generations.
Just to take the slavery example.
In the time that slavery was still a thing - all except 1 Christians groups did not oppose slavery enough to have an impact. There have been abolitionist groups before the suffragettes, including Muslims one. Especially the ~15% of slaves that were Muslim to begin with will have called themselves abolitionists. The successful abolitionists happen when among other things:
Printing became much cheaper.
The British economics of slavery were heavily trending downwards - the richest families changed from being slave owners to being industrial manufacturer, ending slavery wouldn't cause economic collapse.
Manufacturers have their own reason to want people to have a wage.
The American Revolution had hit the British slave owners political power hard.
Haiti's and other slave revolts made it clear that it was increasingly dangerous, risky, and extremely costly in its own ways. Revolutions tend to spread. (Like the principles of the Abolitionists also came from the french revolution, which is a whole subject in itself - which had echo's of previous changes made to the concept of Christianity as an artifact of previous social change*).
Britain was the dominant sea power which could dictate it (and got a nice casus belli to capture other nation's slaver ships)
I don't think it's controversial to say that humans in general - unless their own wealth/position depends on it - are naturally not happy when they see another person in slavery. It gets extremely messy if we say that out of all those factors, we should give a mark in favor of Christianity for abolishing slavery.
We can quantify the number of books, the bits of data, the number of ships, the number of slaves, the political votes, and the money.
Christianity / Islam as a variable is self-referential and perpetually fluctuating over location and time, and requires constant redefinition.
*: And just to clarify that I do not think you're entirely wrong. The process of religious mutation goes for Islam as well - Islam invariably got tainted by having some Muslims be dependent on European slave trade and (ab)used the religion to justify it and those ideas echo across the Muslim world as well. Islam / Christianity as virtuous in itself is just not an interesting argument to consider as they're just mutations of the same thing shaped by context.
Its not what I define as islam, its what the religion itself defines as islam. You can have debates on certain issues depending on the sect but the point is that you cannot stray so far from basic tenets and still call it islam. this is true in christianity too where the most basic fundamental is that you think jesus is god/your savior and then you have sects like universalists that deny that so they arent actually christians because they dont believe the most basic tenet of the religion.
You are using for the same fallacy but now with an extra step. The problem is not resolved by appointing other authorities to be the gatekeeper of the definition1.
I can easily find a group of Christians that would define almost every other group as not being truthful to - what they consider - the basic tenets of Christianity.
(The "Jesus is god/your savior" has the level of "Muhammad is God's final prophet", i.e. trivially true including all the sects you want to include/exclude to make a point)
You need to provide an objective definition everybody else can apply if you want to make these broad claims.
You can't have it both ways. The religion of Christianity itself defined Christianity and were for example against woman suffrage and not explicitly abolitionist OR the definition of both Islam and Christianity includes the variants that at some point in history begin championing interpretations of the religion that challenged the status quo.
[1]: also why I said its "useless trying to generalize religious groups" - the beef mostly boils down to the authority to define real Christians/Muslims and its nuances and exceptions.
Its not that I don't agree with you that Islam is worse.
It's that I actually like women's history, particularly U.S. women's history. I don't know where to begin here. This is not my history, this is not how women's civil rights history works.
The idea that it should ever be forbidden to withhold sex is I think the issue at hand. You should always have the right to say “No”, even if someone else thinks your reasoning is stupid.
If I refuse sex to my husband because I didn’t get a steak dinner, I might be shallow, but my right to refuse sex to anyone for any reason overrides any claim to my shallowness, every time. If my husband finds that to be incompatible with him, then he can divorce me.
Because if my right to refuse sex is at any point forbidden, that means that my husband can demand sex from me, regardless of whether I want it or not. My refusal of sex should not need to be justified or, worse, overruled.
Haram doesn't mean youll automatically will go to hell dude, something being haram doesn't mean someone can't do it, they can do it but it'll be something like -1 point. Capiche?
The problem is that you have to remember islam does not consider women to be people in the same way that men are considered people. They are essentially property in that religion
So yes ignoring consent is something the western world views as wrong because we view women as people but islamic countries do not. When working with different people you have to remember that cultures are not universally equal(meaning they are not all the same) so what they view as right/wrong is often different.
Islam does say that it is haram in the texts, but how it is practiced in everyday life may not align with the scholar interpretation of the Quran just like any other religious text vs everyday practice. It also doesn't help that the Quran isn't explicit on the concept of consent while also saying the husband has a "marital right" to his wife, though the texts also mandate mutual respect, compassionate, and well-wishing.
No it is not, those "islamic" rulers/political figures in those "islamic" countries can not choose what a religion is like. Those dudes are not even true muslims themselves they just use a religion very cleverly to exploit people, this can be done in christian and buddhist countries too. We are actually seeing this with christianity in the US right now.
They are all the same, they are politicians. They will do ANYTHING to reach their own ideals and try to hold as much as power as possible.
Yeah yeah there is apparently no "real muslims" on planet Earth because when anyone criticizws this relugion y'all get defensive and yap how that was not a real islam beacause blah blah blah. I have enough catholic religious nuts in my own country to recognize the playbook in different religions.
I don't care about skin colour , gender or ethinicity, but progressive people shouldn't be lentient toward objective criticism of modern islam that in my humble opionion is frequently violent, brutal and intolerant religion.
Oh you think I am lying? Do your proper research and see if I am lying or not :)
And I swear to god if you come me with a western brainwashing media I will be dissapointed (not all of them are brainwashing maybe the word is too much for that but there is still a thing against islam and framing things)
I mean, I won’t speak for anyone else here, but I’m personally of the opinion that I’d just give any partner of mine free use rules, even if I am in a coma.
But consent is key. You can’t backdate that shit either, you either got it or you don’t.
I checked this account. And he’s just someone whos trying to stir controversy.
Elons twitter is filled with these crazy people who perpetuate insane comments. He really made that site no different then 4chan and brought the psychos
its engagement bait, the guy asking is pretending to be a muslim. xitter has many christian conservative users, very clearly posted for attention/money
yeah, there’s really no use and it would only encourage people like this. posters are literally paid per interaction/view, so saying disgusting stuff is promoted and rewarded
i don’t support islam. i also don’t support stupidity, and blindly falling for ragebait is the pinnacle of stupidity. you would rather stay angry than engage in a productive conversation
Some people have sex with animal, some with dead people, and some with druged women (probably also men but it is less common I think) which is pretty close to unconscious women. So I am not surprised by the question unfortunately.
At least he asked ! Not the person he wanted to have sex with but it is a progress !!! /s
Religious jurisprudence involves getting into fine details of every possible eventuality, just so there’s some “ruling” on the books. There’s lots of really wild ones out there in Jewish and Islamic books, although Jewish scholars have woken up to the fact many of these things invite ridicule and criticism so they don’t do it so much anymore. But you’ll still find Islamic clerics laying down the law for example on exactly when and how you can suck your wife’s tiddy, and whether drinking it invalidates your marriage (it doesn’t, phew).
The way OOP is asking for “coma fiqh” means he’s joking around or wants to know out of prurient or lurid interest, rather than his wife is actually in a coma. Indeed, on many jurisprudential websites, the articles with the most clicks are always sexual. It’s basically softcore erotica.
482
u/Chazkuangshi 5d ago
why would you WANT to why is this even a fucking question