I will take care of you.
Most Famous Somali Sheikh is in Hot Water again against Somali Female Politician
- Thread starter Qeelbax
- Start date
12 pages of arguing haha. Marital rape is a new concept in a lot of the world. Even if you have some early scholars allowing it, that is their opinion in a different time and we don't have to follow it. If a woman rejects intimacy from her husband for no reason she has displeased Allah and the angels curse her. However no where in the Sharia does it allow for a man to force himself onto his wife. This would cause psychological and physical harm and is against the one of the principles of marriage that a man should be kind to his spouse. It's a sin and a cruel thing to do, but it is not equal to a man r*ping a woman unlawful to him. The latter deserves death. I think we can all agree on that.
Well this thread is something else 
Brother @anonimo, our resident feminists are habro waaweyn oo qurbaha ku ilka beelay, oo niman guursada waayey, oo doonaya guri ama reerka kasta oo Soomaali Muslim ah oo dhisan inay dumiyaan.
Bal isweydii maxaa ka galay iyaga nin Muslim ah iyo xaaskiisa iyo goorta ama habka ay isugu tegayaan. Waa kumo aad moodo in jeel laga soo daayey. Markaa waqti ha iskaga lumin brother waa hore bay dhega beeleene. Bal maxaa ka quseeya galmada nin Muslim ah iyo xaaskiisa? Weligay tan oo kale maanta ka hor ma maqal.
Waxay beryahan hogaamiye ka dhigteen habarta Sacdiya la yiraahdo ee xeerka qawmaluudka rabta inay Soomaaliya ka hirgeliso.
Midkalena aan kuu sheego, feministka Soomaalidu muddo bay waxay NGO ahaan ku qaraaban jireen gudniinta oo ay u bixiyeen FGM. Waxay xoogaa sandareeero ah kaga guran jireen kuwaan UNka ah. Hadda mashruucaan khaniisnimada iyo kufsiga ah ee isku dhafan bay rabaan inay kuwaan UNka sandareero kaga doontaan. U taag heli maysid, hungurigii baa halkaa la galay!
Bal isweydii maxaa ka galay iyaga nin Muslim ah iyo xaaskiisa iyo goorta ama habka ay isugu tegayaan. Waa kumo aad moodo in jeel laga soo daayey. Markaa waqti ha iskaga lumin brother waa hore bay dhega beeleene. Bal maxaa ka quseeya galmada nin Muslim ah iyo xaaskiisa? Weligay tan oo kale maanta ka hor ma maqal.
Waxay beryahan hogaamiye ka dhigteen habarta Sacdiya la yiraahdo ee xeerka qawmaluudka rabta inay Soomaaliya ka hirgeliso.
Midkalena aan kuu sheego, feministka Soomaalidu muddo bay waxay NGO ahaan ku qaraaban jireen gudniinta oo ay u bixiyeen FGM. Waxay xoogaa sandareeero ah kaga guran jireen kuwaan UNka ah. Hadda mashruucaan khaniisnimada iyo kufsiga ah ee isku dhafan bay rabaan inay kuwaan UNka sandareero kaga doontaan. U taag heli maysid, hungurigii baa halkaa la galay!
Last edited:
Like I told you, I was already in the process of reading an Arabic text to confirm if the translation was accurate. You jumped the gun ignoramus, found the text in Arabic, ask an Arabic speaker to confirm what is stated or use Google translate for a rough translation:
الهداية شرح بداية المبتدي تحقيق بكداش : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
تحقيق بكداش
archive.org
The English translation of the Persian text does not deviate from the general meaning of the Arabic text as is evinced in the translation of the last sentence in the above text. It is stated that a husband can copulate with a wife against her will if she resides in his house under certain circumstances relating to Nafaqah and the payment of dowry.
Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani is a legit renowned Hanafi classical scholar so it is surely not my place or yours to assume we are his superior in matters regarding Hanafi Fiqh, you can bring in other Hanafi scholars but your word and mine count for Xaar! He is actually referenced by contemporary Muslims as evinced by how this work of his is cited in an IslamWeb Fatwa article discussing a similar subject:
محل جواز معشرة الزوجة بدون رضاها
المرأة ليست ملزمة بأن تمتنع عن الجماع مع زوجها أو عن أي نوع من الاستمتاع المباح ، وعليها أن تجيب دعوة زوجها ما لم يضرها أو يشغلها عن واجباتها. إذا امتنعت دون عذر ، فإنها تعتبر ناشزة ويسقط حقها في النفقة والكسوة والقسم. إذا استمرت في الامتناع ، يجوز للزوج أن يطلقها أو يعضلها لتفتدي منه بالمال...
www.islamweb.net
Ask the Arabic speakers in the forum to translate the above before you throw shit my way again when the point I raised was of a scholarly nature, nothing to do with my own opinion on the subject matter.
Last edited:
Walaal, no skin off my nose if some whimsical folk cannot debate Islamic facts without losing their rag.
it’s surreal sis. Many of these men get emotional when women online simply say ‘men are trash’. Well imagine how normalized it is for men to discuss actually abusing our bodies and the legality of stripping us of education?
We’re meant to accept the blantant dehumanization with such grace and have a conversation.
Hey, we’re stopped discussing the bill now and are talking about if sexually abusing your wife is halal now and this man is claiming it is fine in the Hanafi fiqh. Calling people ‘feminist’ for believing that a husband shouldn’t jump on his wife like animal and that he should be kind to her is a new low.
Saying it’s simply between husband and wife with regards to something that can cause physical and emotional damage is disgusting. At this point you’re doing to argue if he beats her it’s between husband and wife? Why did the prophet s.a.w warn men to not jump on their wives like animals if it is simply a normal thing between husband and wife? Why do have a whole section in Islam about the correct way a man should approach his wife?!
The issue with you is that you want to scream feminist despite not having any Islamic knowledge or compassion for women which is a toxic mix
I’m beginning to realize that a feminist in your books is a woman who doesn’t want to be beat or mistreated. Why didn’t you call me a feminist in the early thread when I argued that a husband should be kind and not divorce his wife for not being able to had kids? I mean that is pro-woman isn’t and it seems that anything that is about remotely treating women with kindness is ‘feminist’ in your books.
You need to understand that no married woman would be okay with her husband forcing himself on her and treating her in this manner. That is why our beloved Prophet s.a.w told men NOT to do that.
The fact that you’re assuming we’re all unmarried because we don’t want to be abused or sexually abused in our own marriages is downright disgusting.
Honestly this is disturbing. I’m actually afraid.
Last edited:
With regards to things that cause mass harm, they most definitely can because at the end of the day fiqh is the opinions of man. Learned ones yes, but they too were very much influenced by the Urf of their society. Also, you didn’t even specify if that is a mainstream Hanafi view or the view of one or two Hanafi scholars. It is normal for within a madhab for a view to have different views especially when their isn’t any direct hadiths about the said topic.
Also, maintaince is very much in the Quran and there doesn’t seem to be a difference in opinion. When the Quran on the other hand talks about husband and wife he talks about mercy and living in honor. When we look at Islamic sexual etiquette with regards to intimacy we have actual warning as to how men should avoid jumping on their wives and we also have the harm principle. Hence the two fiqh issues are simply incomparable. There doesn’t seem to be direct evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that a man can use force.
What you need to understand is that fiqh is incredibly vast and there are thousands of historical scholars who had different views. You literally have classical scholars who believed that women shouldn’t be taught how to fully read, despite the fact that we know that there is nothing in the Quran and Sunnah to argue that. Urf plays a huge role and bringing something up like that when in this day and age scholars and even the bigger classical scholars have in the past maintained that one cannot harm her and that anything that does is strictly forbidden is silly.
A man simply can’t say, hey I’m following the View of a few particular Hanafi jurist from a thousand years ago, despite knowing that such a thing threatens the health of the person.
Would anyone take me seriously if I started using the views of a 18th century scholar about his views on smoking when now we know that such a thing is haram. Can I then say, that fiqh is fiqh when we have now evolved to understand the harm component?
It really isn’t. I tried to check and it’s hard to find. Most the articles and texts you will find are pretty mainstream and will talk about how one shouldn’t force himself ect. You have to really and I mean really try to find it.
Muslim women are in a difficult position because now, men will try and find old and hard to find ideas written more than 800 yrs ago that aren’t even mainstream anymore due to the lack of direct evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and use that to discuss matters that blantantly harm women, whether it be sexual abuse, no access to learning ect.
@anonimo let me tell you another scholarly fiqh view that is no longer commonly believed. Some scholars believed that despite a man having to provide for his wife, even if she has no money of her own if she becomes really Sick, the husband doesn’t have to get her a doctor.
Imagine I used that old and absurd view in a discussion about if a husband has to be kind to his sick wife?
I too have read different fiqh views on an academic level and I’m pretty unemotional about them but modern men using them as some sort of ‘discussion’ as a way to suggest that behaving in such an animalistic way is some how legitimate is downright disgusting, because you can find a lot of ‘views’ that harm women and that can be incredibly cruel. Why stop there? You can even find views that are downright racist btw.
Last edited:
Hamzza
VIP
Like I told you, I was already in the process of reading an Arabic text to confirm if the translation was accurate. You jumped the gun ignoramus, found the text in Arabic, ask an Arabic speaker to confirm what is stated or use Google translate for a rough translation:
View attachment 245408
الهداية شرح بداية المبتدي تحقيق بكداش : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
تحقيق بكداشarchive.org
The English translation of the Persian text does not deviate from the general meaning of the Arabic text as is evinced in the translation of the last sentence in the above text. It is stated that a husband can copulate with a wife against her will if she resides in his house under certain circumstances relating to Nafaqah and the payment of dowry.
Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani is a legit renowned Hanafi classical scholar so it is surely not my place or yours to assume we are his superior in matters regarding Hanafi Fiqh, you can bring in other Hanafi scholars but your word and mine count for Xaar! He is
referenced by contemporary Muslims as evinced by how this work of his is cited in an IslamWeb Fatwa article discussing a similar subject:
محل جواز معشرة الزوجة بدون رضاها
المرأة ليست ملزمة بأن تمتنع عن الجماع مع زوجها أو عن أي نوع من الاستمتاع المباح ، وعليها أن تجيب دعوة زوجها ما لم يضرها أو يشغلها عن واجباتها. إذا امتنعت دون عذر ، فإنها تعتبر ناشزة ويسقط حقها في النفقة والكسوة والقسم. إذا استمرت في الامتناع ، يجوز للزوج أن يطلقها أو يعضلها لتفتدي منه بالمال...
Ask the Arabic speakers in the forum to translate the above before you throw shit my way again when the point I raised was of a scholarly nature, nothing to do with my own opinion on the subject matter.
Imam Zaynuddin ibn Ibrahim ibn Nujaym al-Hanafi wrote in his work Bahr ar-Rayiq:
What this means is that as long as a wife stays in her husband’s dwelling, she is owed sustenance, even if she is rebellious and refuses sex. This is because as long as she remains in his house, a husband can overwhelm her, compelling her to have sex with him.
Alaudiin Abubakar al hanifi talking about the Nushuz and the abandonment of the wife in bed said:
We detect that the final assertion here mentions him having intercourse with her when he wishes to do so rather than when she does, this would contain the case where the reason for discipline is her sexual refusal to begin with.
Yes and your point is? You’ll even find scholarly opinions of how a husband doesn’t have to get a doctor for his sick wife.
Now ask yourself in this day and age, can a husband whose wife cannot afford a doctor who lets say has Cancer not get her a doctor, even though he can afford it?
if you want to open this can of warms out of xaasidnimo then so be it.
Last edited:
Hamzza
VIP
The views you and the other lad posted are simply not mainstream anymore and for a valid reason. I checked the Hanafi website and they don’t take that view anymore, similarly to the way scholars no longer take the view that one can smoke and the view that not paying for your wife’s medical bill despite being very sick because in that situation where do we draw the line?
You’re not discussing Islamic facts here, you’re discussing classic non mainstream opinions of certain historical scholars that even modern Hanafis don’t follow. I can’t go around finding 18th century views on smoking from scholars of that time period and then presenting it as Islamic facts. If I did such a thing, people will obviously beg the question, do I believe that is an acceptable opinion to have? How does that benefit our very modern discussion in a time in which we know this causes lung cancer?
I’ve read some out there fiqh before from the not providing medical bills to divorcing her upon realizing she’s infertile and you name it, but positioning this as facts when it goes against the concept of not harming the wife or living with one with honor is what I find alarming. We can’t sit here and say Islam treats women with respect if you’re also going to entertain views that means you can withhold medical attention, stop her from reading, forcing yourself on her and the list goes on.
Hamzza
VIP
He is not obliged to buy her medicine and take her to the doctor and she is not obligated to cook and clean the primary goal of the Nikah contract is to halalizes the sexual organs of the partners for each other. Both the aforementioned things are not essential needs
I didn't understand your question, it's the moral responsibility of the husband to take his suffering wife to the doctor.
That view isn’t acceptable anymore since marriage in the Quran is framed as kindness and mercy and we have wealth of evidence from the Sunnah that emphasize good treatment of spouses.
Also, looking at the Urf of the time going to the doctors wasn’t common for people. People tended to rely on home treatments. A 10th century man wouldn’t have even saw seeing a doctor as necessary for himself. People didn’t even understand basic medical issues.
Furthermore, A person that will watch you waste away from cancer isn’t treating you well and that is simple common sense, hence why you don’t find mainstream scholars ever arguing such a point. The world has changed, we know smoking is bad for us, people now often rely on going to the hospital and medical care around the world is seen as a human right.
Yep. If she had cancer and couldn’t afford to pay for her own treatment since she’s a housewife, is he morally obliged to buy her medication and take her to the
I have only scratched the surface and have not delved into the Fiqh of other major Hanafi scholars hence why I posed the question to @AdoonkaAlle. The scholar in question is not a random Fiqi but one of the mainstream Hanafi Fiqh scholars hence he has some authoritative weight behind him as exemplified by how his rulings and book are authoritative to this day; the IslamWeb usage of his work being an example. Individuals like him who are closer to the times of Sahabah are not lacking in access to contemporaneous sources hence why they are held in high regard as classical scholars. Tbh, I have no interest in pursuing this matter further as it requires in-depth analysis of the main Hanafi Fiqh books. I nonetheless appreciate the efforts of @Hamzza in presenting evidence from other Hanafi classical scholars.
None of us here are Fiqis so let us refrain from passing judgement and refer to those more knowledgeable than us. I am not here to debate you about random Fiqh rulings but this debate surrounding consent made me intellectually curious about how the different schools of thought view spousal conjugal relations after coming across evidence of Hanafis adopting a different Fiqh to other school of thoughts. No one is legitimising anything so stop with the outburst and victim narrative.
The discussion I was referring to was the general debate surrounding marital rape and how it has been blown out of proportion due to a misunderstanding by some that marital rape as legislated upon in the FGS bill is not recognised in Sharia. The Hanafi Fiqh question was addressed to one individual, not the masses.
The smoking analogy is folly as no contemporary scholar cite Smoking as not being harmful based on classical scholars, however, Hudaya is still used today as evident in his work is held in high regard and utilised by scholars for Fatwas or in talks as can be found on YouTube. He is not just some random Hanafi Fiqi.
Again that doesn’t mean anything, you literally have whole madhabs that believed that a husband doesn’t have to provide medical care. In fact there are more scholarly writing that believe that a man doesn’t have to provide medical care than a man forcing himself on a wife. These are major scholars, yet modern scholars would never take such a stance seriously in this day and age. So what is the point?
It’s an Urf issue as we have more than enough hadiths that say that one should initiate foreplay and that men are warned to not jump on their wives. Those hadiths are sahih, so does forcing your wife not contradict those Hadiths? Why do you think that even modern Hanafis don’t usually post the opinion that one can use force
Also, since we know that force without warm up can cause physical issues which in fact a textbook definition of harm, how can we sit here and talk about harming fellow humans?
All you are doing is causing major issues. You don’t even know if is a mainstream opinion within the madhab. You’ve opened a can of worms whilst being ignorant yourself. Dangerous behavior.
You still haven’t even confirmed if it is a mainstream Hanafi opinion or the opinion of one or two. I’m sure you can find scholarly views of scholars who followed other madhabs but who might have had thpersonal view.
Victim narrative? The discussion we’re having is a fact of life for many women across the world and some Muslim men thinking they’re allowed to jump on their wives as they see fit is a common view.
I’m sorry but you as a man, I don’t recall people having in-depth ‘intellectual’ discussions that is about the legitimacy of being psychologically and emotionally harmed. Such a discussion wouldn’t even be entertained by men as your humanity is very much recognized. So shut up about the victim comment.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
And hardly any contemporary scholars site that a man can use force. The concept is the same. They both cause harm. Also, you’ve seen what? One or two scholars that believe it is okay and you can’t even tell me if this the overall view of the Hanafi school.
Actual major scholars of the past believed that you don’t have to get a doctor for your wife, hardly any contemporary scholar would argue such a thing as the world has changed and medical attention is now a need. We even still use those classical scholars for references in other parts of the deen, so what exactly is your point?
What is the end goal? To normalize it as a legitimate view in which a man can do this If he so wishes?
Last edited:
Hamzza
VIP
A man cannot rape his wife, that's(husband rapping wife) is a recent western invention, a lot of bad things can happen between spouses but rape is not one of them.
You were serious Basra
You are arguing aimlessly.
Firstly, I have made it clear that my aim is to satisfy an intellectual curiosity, you got a problem with that?
How am I causing major issues by asking an Cilm question regarding Classical Hanafi Fiqh? GTHOH, Cilm is Cilm, nothing wrong about it. I am curious about the opinion of Classical Hanafi Fiqh scholars like Burhan regarding the subjects raised here, you got a problem with me satisfying my curiosity? If you do, take a hike cos I don't need your Calaacal.
I never made any claims, just emphasised that there are classical Hanafi Fiqh rulings such as the one I referenced.
Listen, regarding your spoiler, you have your views, so do I, but I didn't ask for yours and I ain't shoving mine down your throat so spare your reasoning. My pursuit of knowledge is not a concern of yours or anyone else for that matter.
You read Arabic, don't you? That IslamWeb article clearly shares Burhan's stance regarding certain circumstances. Their Fiqh committee includes renowned scholars who practice in Qatar. Hence, it is not like we are discussing a matter that has been relegated to the past Sharia speaking hence the curiosity.
I have no end goal, just got inquisitive after coming across a Hanafi classical ruling on copulation. What is your aim in haranguing me, and even @Hamzza by accusing him of being Xaasid just because he shared other Hanafi scholars? Shit has got you obsessed to the point of madness.
If he forces himself on her, that is sexual
Abuse and that does happen and can happen. It simply not seen as the r-word as it isn’t forced Zina.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Israel is punishing Iraqi Shia militias severely with airstrikes in Iraq (unconfirmed)- Latest: Fobnimo Till I Dhimo