//(she can refuse sex - but it is just sinful and it works the other way too - unless there is a valid reason for withholding it..)

Now even that gist of the argument does not actually back up what you had said before. //

Haven't a clue what you're arguing here - maybe you can elaborate something meaningful so I can respond to it...

They are not my assertions - they are the Hanafi assertions - and they do follow. You as ever choose not to follow the argument.

And secondly, one can use force where one's rights are concerned - why do you think the West continually accuse Muslims of marriage rape???? Either they have seriously misunderstood Islam or you have not understood what is and is not allowed in Islam.

You wrote:

The assertions have been misunderstood by you.
and no, force is not allowed - there is no legal basis for that.

Wrong - there is no legal basis to forbid it - bring one evidence on the subject!
To permit force the following ayat is usually adduced:
"As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great" [al-Nisa’ 4:34]

You wrote:

The hadith are pretty explicit in stating that the angels will curse the woman for this, but there is no mention of telling the husband that he can force her. Sunnipath answer on it.
This is why I state that you seem to have read many books, but your actual understnding is lacking.

I would suggest your comments are little more than incorrect and slanderous - maybe you should ask me for sources before jumping to conclusions - I don't follow a number of modern scholars like Kowthri who are problematic - the link you provided shows for a wife to reject the husband's advances is forbidden, but there is not an iota of evidence prohibiting force! Yet that is this "scholar's" conclusion!

I have read of a number of classical scholars who have permitted the husband to use force, which you should read to see broaden your understanding of the subject, references include:

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.

You wrote:

You mentioned earlier about certain things being from the usul of fiqh that any student will know or something... have you studied Islam formally with a scholar?

Anyone with a basic grounding of the fiqh of the classical scholars would know their views on the matter of force, whether they agree with it or not - you apparently seem to lack this.

You wrote:

I am not even suggesting that I am perfect or even close to being a good Muslim, but your understanding seems to be very deeply flawed - almost like an orientalist understanding instead of someone who has embraced it and is a part of teh community.

You put dodgy comments on many topics - that is terrible. If you had reasonable knowledge on the topic, I could understand your points. But in many cases you lack any kind of research on the topic - simply repeating rhetoric and what the dominany ideology expects - they hate forced sex in marriage and call it rape, so you know what, let's change Islamic law, contracts and make the halal haram to fit this bit of Islam with western expectations - instead of explaining the hikma and how the whole system works and fits together.
When a woman provides consent to the nikah contract, she should read the terms and conditions - if she disagrees don't enter the contract misleading the other party! When one gives consent to sex at any time one should not moan about it later that the husband needs permission and it is rape if he doesn't get additional permission - it is not rape as he already has a contract to prove her unqualified permission (excluding only menses etc). To revoke such permission requires agreement or she can end the marriage.

Finally, your failings should not push you to insult others and assume/assert they lack research and study - if you think that is the case, prove it!

You wrote:

the link that you are nullifying states that the hadith mentions "the husband spends the night in anger or being displeased," which shows that forcing her to submit sexually is not allowed as if it was, that is what would have been said, something along the lines of "take what is rightfully yours". But there are no hadith to that avail.
...and I will step out of line here and say that the scholars who do say it is allowed - even if they are big scholars who spent their lives gaining education - I still think their conclusion is erroneous.

The fundamental mistake you are making with this hadith is that absence of text or comment means nothing - you cannot derive anything from the absence of content (the obvious reasoning being that anyone can speculate anything they want and without any supporting text all speculations remain possible!) One can easily say that the hadith makes it clear that she is wrong its following silence implies one can sort her out. Like your assertion, this is equally tenable, but as neither have any supporting text in this narration, both are invalid speculations on this text.

Thus one has to seek another positive text that supports one's conclusions - something the link fails to do rendering the opinion batil!

And I do think you are out of line for taking a contemporary scholar who has produced nothing original or new or great in the place of classical scholars who were giants of history and contributed major substance to their fields. Unless you can show your cited scholar has contributed anything of significance I will read it and revise my view if need be.

You wrote:

From another sunnipath link:

“Do not begin intercourse until she has experienced desire like the desire you experience, lest you fulfill your desires before she does.” [Mentioned by Imam Ibn Qudama in his Mughni]

Yes I've read Rabbani's argument - just as insubstantive and cites no evidence to prohibit forced sex and interestingly does not cite the classical scholars - always suspicious where classical scholars have addressed matters. Addressing his argument and his hadith you cited above:
It is not relevant as the subject matter is about the woman who is cooperative to the process and engages in foreplay, something a disobedient wife would not do. It does not comment about the one who is disobedient - and importantly it does not prohibit the use of force.
Interestingly the hadith also lacks qareena to make the order obligatory leaving the possibilties of mandoub or mubah.

You wrote:

And it is authentically established that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said,

“Verily your wife has rights over you.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Again this narration is not relevant to the discussion as the hadith is not discussing the issue of the disobedient wife and whether one can force sex with her or not. It simply says the wife has rights and is useful if the discussion had been about the wife having no rights - what specific rights does she have according to the hadith? No elaboration...and that's its problem. You need a hadith that states she has a right not to have force used against her - problematic as the Quranic ayat provides the right to the man to use force against a disobedient wife. Thus this hadith is not relevant to the discussion.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

When a woman provides consent to the nikah contract, she should read the terms and conditions - if she disagrees don't enter the contract misleading the other party! When one gives consent to sex at any time one should not moan about it later that the husband needs permission and it is rape if he doesn't get additional permission - it is not rape as he already has a contract to prove her unqualified permission (excluding only menses etc). To revoke such permission requires agreement or she can end the marriage.

It is not about providing additional permission, but about living in the real world and about wether the woman can revoke it or not for watever reason.

Sharia came to let us live in the real world in a decent and noble manner - moving away from sharia with the argument "living in the real world" is dubious...
What I really think is the subtext connected to "living in the real world" is, we live in secular capitalist democracies that are so overwhelming with their culture, to the point women are foolish enough to seek "sloganistic" rights kuffar rulers give them, that constribute to marital problems, that we need to modify Islam to do the same so they follow Islam in their lives.
What we need to do is dawa to these people that Islam is correct and their lives will be better by following it - and not the chimera of the western values and rights... they don't work!

You wrote:

Even divorce is something that takes a minimum of three months... but we are aware that sex nullifies it.

Not sure what you're on about here or the relevance of this point.

You wrote:

(I am not arguing that a woman should withhold - or even the man should - without valid reason as I would think that would break some basic tenets of marriage.)

I know - the discussion is not on the practice, but on the conceptual issue of rights/duties - oh there I go again, concepts and abstraction! Naughty me!
I'd be interested in what you mean by "basic tenets of marriage"...

Anonymous1 wrote:

No Blue - it's different rights for men and different rights for women.

That's why we need to study and seriously consider the "women's rights" they talk about in the west as they are generally nonsense - women are regularly abused, beaten etc despite the rhetoric of equality!

Islam builds on reality and does not come out with cheap slogans that don't actually work for creation. Men are different to women so their duties/rights are different - men have more duties and correspondingly more rights - women have less duties and less rights.

Erm

excuse me!

I dont think so
men do go out n work
but women do everything else
cooking
cleaning
raising children

so dont give me that

Anonymous1 wrote:

No Blue - it's different rights for men and different rights for women.

they still have rights, they are still people in their own right. [right?]
and the rights may not be the same but they are equally as important as men's rights

You wrote:

the argument against it is the multiple ahadith talking abput kindness. More, in the instance of where the wife has refused sexual relations, no hadith has even hinted that the husband should "take what is rightfully his" - and since the basic premise is that a person should always take the "easy option", there is no basis for saying otherwise.

Is it funny that a few hours ago you were arguing that secularism is spreading the abuse of women and now you are saying it is the God given right in Islam?

Abuse of women is beating them with bruising, blood, breaking bones, regular phenomena in the west - Islam permits use of force without the above in the Quranic verses which you conveniently ignore.
A nushuz woman is established by the curses mentioned in the hadith - the verse then provides permission to use force.

You wrote:

Sharia came to let us live in the real world in a decent and noble manner - moving away from sharia with the argument "living in the real world" is dubious...

Except that there is no verse or hadith that in any way allows forcing sex. None exists. On the other hand there are many about kindness etc, but you decide to not accept them.

Quranic ayat exists stating "yadribuhuna" - if you don't know arabic look it up in a dictionary. This is proof. You don't have any.

You wrote:

One can easily say that the hadith makes it clear that she is wrong its following silence implies one can sort her out.

Except that the womans punishment is expliocitly stated - that the angels will curse her. If the case was otherwise, it would have been mentioned instead of saying "the angels will curse her" it would say "take what is rightfully yours" but that is not the case.

Curse of the angel is not a punishment - it is a reality that is going on. The punishment will be in the hereafter with hellfire - the punishment in this life is not mentioned in the hadith and for anyone to try to extract it are simply fabricating. The punishment in this life is mentioned in the Quranic ayat - yadribuhunn.

You wrote:

I'd be interested in what you mean by "basic tenets of marriage"...

amongst other things, conjugal relations. if a spouse is not willing to commit to them, the marriage is not real. I think there was even a concept in the early muslim community where no sexual relations or other contact for a specific period of time would nullify the marriage... but I may be imaginging that.

You are imagining that - the nikah is valid once the contract is formed - it is terminated through talaq. Rights/duties are prescribed by sharia and not left to our imaginations or western pressure.

1R4M wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

No Blue - it's different rights for men and different rights for women.

That's why we need to study and seriously consider the "women's rights" they talk about in the west as they are generally nonsense - women are regularly abused, beaten etc despite the rhetoric of equality!

Islam builds on reality and does not come out with cheap slogans that don't actually work for creation. Men are different to women so their duties/rights are different - men have more duties and correspondingly more rights - women have less duties and less rights.

Erm

excuse me!

I dont think so
men do go out n work
but women do everything else
cooking
cleaning
raising children

so dont give me that

Excuse me but I strongly disagree with your categorisation.

Islam obliges the wife with two things once she is married - obedience to her husband and provision of sex when he asks for it. The rest of the matters are not obliged on her from any text and are simply permitted. People due it out of culture, practice, sharing of the workload etc not because sharia obliges it.

Man is obliged with work, provision of food,clothing,shelter, sex, maintenance of relations, looking after parents, sisters if divorced, marrying off daughters etc etc etc

Blue wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

No Blue - it's different rights for men and different rights for women.

they still have rights, they are still people in their own right. [right?]
and the rights may not be the same but they are equally as important as men's rights

Yes they have rights - food, clothing, shelter, sex.

Remmeber this is a discussion of legal enforcable rights/duties - I'm not mixing the discussion with emotive "nice to have issues"...they are naturally separate and much more...

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

A nushuz woman is established by the curses mentioned in the hadith - the verse then provides permission to use force.

But not in the way you suggest.

Scholars have suggested that the "force" mentioned is like a light tap. You are suggesting that it means that she can be forced to have sex. Two totally different things.

I am also quite sure that that verse is about marital infidelity.

I'm not suggesting anything - I am repeating almost verbatim what the evidences say. To suggest anything would move into the realms of interpretations etc which is a different matter. The verse itself one can yadribuhunna - which means strike/hit etc a wife whom one suspects of being nushuz - meaning rebellious or disobedient.

The verse would cover marital infidelity but is wider in scope - it is known as being mutlaq to the connotations of nushuz - thus to restrict it qayd one would need evidence.

The ahadith set the limits of darb - and it is not light tap! Just as one can hit a child to discipline it, the same can be done with a wife if not more (which makes sense, as a child is more delicate, younger and fragile than an adult!) - the limit being not to bruise, break bones, cause blood etc IE It is discipline and not harm! Schools across Europe were given such permission until relatively recently and even they generally understood the notion of discipline and its purpose.

del

assalamu alaikum,

women have less duties than men and less rights? I think Allah has given more rights, and as for duties i haven't counted them but we have burdens just as men do.

You say that women merely have to provide sex and obey their husband. Well to me that is devaluing a good pious muslim wife and the sanctity of marriage. As Ir4m said women do a lot more than just the two things you mentioned, you forget that we carry a baby in our wombs near to a year, then we breast feed that child. We go long hours without sleep. We teach the child how to eat, dress, speak clean. We give the child tarbiya in the home. We mould that child to be a good muslim. We are the first educators of a child. That is no little task. Please raise a child yourself and then tell me, women do nothing compared to men. Allah chose women over men to have children for a very good reason. Tallying up what men do and women don't do is really irrelevant and childish. It's not how many tasks you perform but the importance of those tasks and the love and patience a person endures when performing those tasks.

I think you have completely devalued muslim women and mothers in general by saying they are nothing little of sex slaves.

As for being obliged to look after parents and sisters. the sad fact is the wives look after the in laws. The men go to work. If the parents are disabled then the state would make financial provisions even carers allowance, so the man should stay at home and care for his parents. There's no excuse oh i have to go earn the bread and butter in such a case there would be no need, you can struggle and get by on benefits and do your manly duty take care of your parents.

I look after my in law and being a full time carer with small kids in tow is no easy matter, and its not easy when you have to keep a tight lip out of respect either. I've worked in my life, and working is hard but it is relatively easy compared with caring for small children and disabled individuals, that takes a lot more patience.

As for this idea that women are nothing but a material object that is purchased, like a pair of socks in a pound shop. well maybe that's how you view your sisters in islam. But i prefer to accept the level of respect Allah and his messenger (saW) have given women over your personal thoughts. Was our mother Aisha (ra) nothing but a material object, because that is effective;y what you are saying when you refer to us women as being purchased, i mean she is a woman right or she excluded on the grounds of her exceptional status?

Also as for purchasing the wife with mahr. Well mahr does not have to be a monetary gift. There is nothing stressing that mahr must be such and such amount as a rule. giving the wife a gift like teaching her to read the Quran, giving her a copy of the Quran is mahr likewise. So how is a woman purchased in this case?

Anonymous1 wrote:

They are not my assertions - they are the Hanafi assertions - and they do follow. You as ever choose not to follow the argument.

And secondly, one can use force where one's rights are concerned - why do you think the West continually accuse Muslims of marriage rape???? Either they have seriously misunderstood Islam or you have not understood what is and is not allowed in Islam.

brother are you married? why would anyone wish to have intimacy with someone who was non compliant, sounds totally disgusting to me,and what fatwa has been given stating a man can take his wife by force? It is stated she has to obey if she has no valid excuse. if she does not she is sinful, he can reprimand her, but this does not include force. Let Allah deal with her.

You wrote:

[qs:4:128]
How would a husband rebel (the word nushuz is used there too, but it is translation as aversion with the translation that is loaded on this site) against his wife?

You appear to be unclear on the word nushuz - rebellion is against the laws, limits and rights Allah has put in place and where they are rights of the husband one can linguistically state it is rebellion against him - but the rebelleion is against Allah and what he has laid down in both cases! I'd suggest you read what the classical scholars say as you don't trust what I say despite the meaning being quite clear and consistent.

Hajjar wrote:

women have less duties than men and less rights? I think Allah has given more rights, and as for duties i haven't counted them but we have burdens just as men do.

Maybe you think wrong - man has more rights than his wife. Just google it and you'll see - that is why the West bang on about poor Muslim women being oppressed - they base it on something factual - but ignore the aspect that she has less responsibilities too! Muslims should respond with the truth - not theories that try to match Islam with the way of life of the accusers.

Hajjar wrote:

You say that women merely have to provide sex and obey their husband. Well to me that is devaluing a good pious muslim wife and the sanctity of marriage.

Why is it devaluing a wife? Man and woman have to simply obey and worship their lord. Is that devaluing humans? The answer is, that is their purpose for which they have been created and that is the role of the wife in the marriage. Nothing devaluing about it imho. It is devaluing for a woman who believe the propaganda and "rights" the west give women - that hardly work in practice and create turmoil in family life. If one wants those rights, don't do a nikaah, but do a registered marriage - you'll get them - along with the sin of zina one's whole life.

Hajjar wrote:

As Ir4m said women do a lot more than just the two things you mentioned, you forget that we carry a baby in our wombs near to a year.

You are mixing subjects - the positive obligation of a wife is to obey and provide sex when required - it is established in too many Islamic texts.
IF she gets pregnant she has no choice in the matter and the prohibition to abort it is the child's right to life.

Hajjar wrote:

then we breast feed that child. We go long hours without sleep. We teach the child how to eat, dress, speak clean. We give the child tarbiya in the home. We mould that child to be a good muslim. We are the first educators of a child. That is no little task. Please raise a child yourself and then tell me, women do nothing compared to men.

Maybe you can bring me the evidences that say it is your duty to do these things? I would suggest you cannot. So please don't claim them as the wife's duties in Islam as they are not - what people choose to do or do for cultural reasons is not the same as a duty imposed by Allah.

The Arabs used to leave the children with a carer before Islam and this tradition was allowed to continue as the obligation was not on the wife to do it.

It is well known from Quranic verses that if a woman is divorced, she can demand payment for provision of care/breastfeeding etc from the father of the child - if she was obliged to do this she would not be permitted to charge for it.

Hajjar wrote:

Allah chose women over men to have children for a very good reason. Tallying up what men do and women don't do is really irrelevant and childish.

No it's not - as there is so much confusion out there between Western philosophies of marital law, obligations/rights etc, and those in Islam, the two need to be delineated - many Muslims try equating women's rights in the west and Islam or human rights in the west and Islam - when one investigates these claims, one finds significant differences and divergences on many points... which are irreconcilable showing how such efforts are futile and even misleading!

Furthermore, how are Muslim sisters meant to be good pious wives when they don't even know their duties and rights (that is needed to be a good pious wife)? If they enter a marriage expecting both parties to be equal, and find the husband's expectations are different, whilst the nikaah contract ordains something different which both have signed, is that going to be a recipe for success or disaster? Maybe you've not seen the rise in divorce amongst the Muslim community... these false expectations and understandings play a significant part...

Hajjar wrote:

It's not how many tasks you perform but the importance of those tasks and the love and patience a person endures when performing those tasks.

These are important too no doubt - but a separate conceptual discussion from the one above and erroneous to conflate the two. They require different threads of evidence and reason.

Hajjar wrote:

I think you have completely devalued muslim women and mothers in general by saying they are nothing little of sex slaves.

Although a very flippant comment, it reveals an interesting element of your thinking - there is a similarity between slaves and wives as well as men as we are all slaves of God - and we even name our children with such a title with pride, abd allah!

You should read all the narrations on this subject rather than the ones used to repel attacks of the west so you have balanced understanding of the topic, a few examples of generally unheard of narrations are reproduced below:

"Had I ordered anybody to prostrate before any one, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands on account of men's rights over the women ordained by Allah." Abu Dawood, Ahmad, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah

"There are three (persons) whose prayer will not be accepted, nor their virtues be taken above: The runaway slave until he returns back to his master, the woman with whom her husband is dissatisfied, and the drunk until he becomes sober." Mishkat al-Masabih

"By Him in Whose Hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is above the heaven becomes displeased with her until he (her husband) becomes pleased with her". [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

"Whenever a woman harms her husband in this world (that is without any due right), his wife among the (Houris in Jannah) says: `You must not harm him. May Allah destroy you! He is only a passing guest with you and is about to leave you to come to us". Tirmidhi

The Prophet (SAW) said, "I am not leaving behind me a more harmful trial for men than women". Bukhari and Muslim

'O Messenger of Allah ! What right has the wife of one among us got over him?' He said: 'It is that you shall give her food when you have taken your food, that you shall clothe her when you have clothed yourself, that you shall not slap her on the face, nor revile her, nor desert her except within the house.'" Sunan Ibn Majah

"The man is not to be asked why he beat his wife ..."' Abu Dawood and al-Nisa'i

Women are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favours and the good (charitable) deeds done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you." Sahih Bukhari

The Prophet(saw) said 'The woman is a toy, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her)." Tuffaha, Ahmad Zaky

Omar [one of the Khalifs] was once talking when his wife interjected, so he said to her: 'You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you.'"

And 'Amru Bin al-'Aas, also a governor, said: "Women are toys, so choose."

Hajjar wrote:

As for being obliged to look after parents and sisters. the sad fact is the wives look after the in laws...

Again you mix practices of some people with obligations/rights ordained by Allah - it's like citing the occurrence of forced marriages or how the old are dumped in old care homes when discussing rights/duties of Islam to daughters/parents... conceptually problematic.

Hajjar wrote:

As for this idea that women are nothing but a material object that is purchased, like a pair of socks in a pound shop. well maybe that's how you view your sisters in islam. But i prefer to accept the level of respect Allah and his messenger (saW) have given women over your personal thoughts. Was our mother Aisha (ra) nothing but a material object, because that is effective;y what you are saying when you refer to us women as being purchased, i mean she is a woman right or she excluded on the grounds of her exceptional status?

If Allah permited the purchase and sale of slaves (human beings!) is it so far fetched that a husband cannot own his wife? The Hanafis argue the issue, why is a man allowed to order his wife around and demand sex when he likes and she has to obey him? That authority comes from the nikaah contract. But what is it about the nikaah contract that gives him this authority? They conclude the payment of mahr in a contract (consideration - whatever it may constitute) at the level demanded by the wife to be implies a purchase has occurred which gives him the right over her in all her matters - no different to when he purchses any good or slave. However distasteful one cannot override the creator's laws with one's own thinking.

You can disagree but maybe you should provide legal reasoning rather tham emotion.

And yes, we are all material objects - made up of atoms and molecules. Respect has nothing to do with the issue as one can respect or disrepect one's wife even whether he owns her or not (as seen in most western marriages) just like one can respect a slave, a car, a house etc. It does not negate ownership - a separate argument is needed for that.

Hajjar wrote:

Also as for purchasing the wife with mahr. Well mahr does not have to be a monetary gift. There is nothing stressing that mahr must be such and such amount as a rule. giving the wife a gift like teaching her to read the Quran, giving her a copy of the Quran is mahr likewise. So how is a woman purchased in this case?

Mahr can be pretty much anything of value to the bride - she has the right to accept or reject as she will be controlled by the husband after that - but without mahr there is no valid nikaah. And the mahr goes from man to woman, and not the woman to the man - the one buying something pays consideration for it - the one being bought does not.

You wrote:

Nice to see that you ignored the rest of the post that explained it.
Bravo.

I'd seen it before somewhere on the net - it added nothing substantive and just waffled on and on that's why I personally didn't bother to paste it.

If you think there was a substantive point related to the discussion feel free to reproduce the appropriate portion.

My point still stands and is consistent - nushuz is the one who is disobedient and rebellious and the verse permits the use of force. Forcing one's wife to have sex is no problem so long as it does not violate the limits imposed by the ahadith.

//If this context is kept in mind, then it becomes evident that nushuz means the type of behaviour on the part of the husband or the wife which is so disturbing for the other that their living together becomes difficult.//

Not tenable from the ayats he uses - simply his opinion - maybe he can provide proof for it...

//where there are no ahadith where the Prophet Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him tells the men to "take what is rightfully theirs".//

There's a clear ayat on the matter - if they are nushuz (which includes violating the husband's rights over her by flirting with other men, going out without covering herself, take's his wealth without his permission or leaving the house without permission etc) he can hit her, forcibly make her stop or even take his wealth back from her!

There are narrations about one being a martyr fighting to protect his rights - but they are not necessary as there is a clear text on this subject matter.

//But there are hadith that ask the question how you can beat your wife and then lie with her at night...//
Yes and these hadith do not forbid the practice of "hitting" one's wife and then sleeping with her at night - in fact permitting it but discouraging Muslims from doing it - contradicting your argument.

That is exactly my point - it is permitted - I don't encourage a man to do it, have sabr! But if one did it, it is permitted.