You wrote:

Hitting someone is not the same of forcing them to have sex.The argument is not if she can be hit (that was a side argument resulting from you incorrectly attributing
domestic abuse with secularism) but if she can be forced to have sex.

In hitting someone force is exercised and this force is being legitimised by the text - if one can hit, then the language implies lesser use of force like making someone sit down, pushing them to another place etc is permitted. Thus use of force can apply to any matter of nushuz including sex as the verse is mutlaq.
Your argument is like saying, the verse says "uff" to parents is haram, but it's ok to give them dirty looks or beating them with a stick because the verse did not use those terms - only someone who is illiterate of Arabic and wants to argue for arguments sake would argue that. I have yet to read of one scholar in our entire history who looks for literal texts the way you are looking for them and not even come across one who has denied the text of "uff" does not imply issues of beating or abuse etc

You wrote:

Actually the original argument was one of ownershipp, but we moved past that since your understanding was so poor

You wanted proof for the assertion, and as others asked more politely for it, I provided! You obviously had never come across the issue - and you accuse me that my understanding is poor - you are joking!
I personally don't follow the Hanafi view as there is a difference of opinion amongst the jurists - but I respect their view as it is strong and can easily be deduced from the texts.

You wrote:

(a gift or even a consideration is not a price).

So now you're suggesting maher is a gift? So maybe you can explain how one can have a contract within a contract? Have you ever studied contract law in Islam at any level? I'm most interested how you will square that circle!
Consideration is not a price - what does that mean if anything???

You wrote:

The mahr is not the contract. The contract is the Nikah. the Mahr is a required gift for it, but it in itself is not the contract.

LOL You haven't a clue what you are talking about!

Mahr is a condition of the nikaah contract - it is not a gift as a gift is optional should one choose to give or not to give!

I am not equating anything - you appear to.

I am stating my point clearly:
- force is permitted against the wife
- when one hits ones wife one uses force
- if hitting is allowed, lesser use of the force is permitted
- pushing, shoving, grabbing etc are all permitted as they are lesser use of force of hitting
- all shapes and sizes of force are allowed - limited only by the ahadith as to their extent - from minimal force to striking, hitting etc and everything in between
- force can be used on all matters where the husband orders or requests something
- force can be used to make the wife cook for him
- force can be used to make the wife bring him water
- force can be used to stop his wife flirting with other men

Thus force can be used to have sex too.

You seem to accept everything else except sex - why? It is clearly not because of any evidence or argument based on evidences - it seems to be a distaste picked up from western culture and their slogans and propaganda! You don't want to be accused of allowed rape in Islam - And you have no answer of such an allegation! That's your real problem!!!

You wrote:

I am clearly stating that rape is not considered a "lesser use of force".

In Islam there are different punishments for violence and for rape. Rape is considered terrorism and is punished harshly, while violence only requires like to like retribution.

So you finally come out with it - a husband who uses force on his wife is RAPE! Shame on you! It's disgusting that you imply that the classical scholars allowed the use of RAPE!!!

Study the definition of rape before you use it!!! Don't just repeat the nonsense you read in the Sun attacking Muslims, their culture and heritage!!!

That's the problem with SECULARISTS (and their MODERNIST COUSINS!) - you show them ayaat, ahadith, the arguments that emerge from the sources - but they want to please the westerners and prefer to follow their dominant ideology and accusations and are deaf, dumb and blind to the truth - unable to address it or refute it!

You have proven nothing - making assertions is not proof, substantiating them with reason or divine text is proof.

All you've done so far is bring ahadith that don't even relate to the subject under discussion, with attempts to derive conclusions from things not said or mentioned in the hadith (a process which not one scholar I've ever read about in our history agrees with!), and reasoning that allows you to beat up your parents as the verse prohibits one to even say uff in annoyance!!! Great arguments - not!

All you have is the emotional "OH MY GOD! They allow force sex!!! That must be rape!!!" nonsense - maybe you can find a youtube video to support you.

For your information, rape cannot occur when a woman contractually agrees to hand over right of sex on demand to her husband - a contractual right must be varied mutually and not unilaterally! That is why scholars in our history have never termed this rape - it's just secularists/modernists who cannot stomach actual Islam and must change it for their nefarious ends!

Be a man for God's sake - even women can accept this - why can't you???

Anonymous1 wrote:

Be a man for God's sake - even women can accept this - why can't you???

no they don't.

to you be your religion and to me be mine.

You wrote:

Except that there is no evidence that forcing sex is allowed.

Yes the quranic verse cited above permits force and the ahadith order the woman to provide sex or else she is cursed and sinful. Your reading skills need updating.

You wrote:

However, in NONE of them does the prophet tell the husband to take "what is rightfully his".

Irrelevant - absence of an action or statement is not proof for anything. The Prophet(saw) did not trim his beard to one fist - what does that mean? nothing! The Prophet(saw) did not have a dome on his mosque, did not visit Bahrain, did not eat a pizza, did not drive a car, did not pray on a prayer mat... so what? His not doing something is not part of the sunnah - his actions, sayings and approvals is sunnah which we are ordered to follow. Study Usul al-Fiqh and you would be clear on this basic premise.

I have provided the proof point by point above - if you have the ability, refute it - point by point!

You wrote:

If it was allowed, it would have been xclearly said so on those occasions.

Wrong - if you actually follow this premise, then bring one clear decisive ayat or hadith that clearly says that the Prophet(saw) was masoom - infallible - go on, I challenge you! A basic aqeedah point!

Things in sharia are pieced together - even something as basic as prayer is compiled from different sources - only the one who has no knowledge of sharia will demand a text that phrases a problem as he would like.

Noor wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Be a man for God's sake - even women can accept this - why can't you???

no they don't.

to you be your religion and to me be mine.

Sorry - I was talking about Muslim women can accept this - you should dump your dodgy religion and follow my religion/way of life - Islam... it is very civilised - unlike the kufr belief systems our there of democracy, british nationalism, hinduism etc

Anonymous1 wrote:

Noor wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Be a man for God's sake - even women can accept this - why can't you???

no they don't.

to you be your religion and to me be mine.

Sorry - I was talking about Muslim women can accept this - you should dump your dodgy religion and follow my religion/way of life - Islam... it is very civilised - unlike the kufr belief systems our there of democracy, british nationalism, hinduism etc

no thanks.

i do not wish to follow your version of islam.

No probs - you don't have to follow sunnism, you can follow shi'ism - they are our muslim brothers and sisters too. You'll be safe there too

actually i refer to the scholars i dont take my religion from no one on the forum. i may ask they may ask me, but i double check everything. i am well aware of this subject and no scholar has said force for sex is encouraged or permitted. if that was the case i would have been reluctant to get married.

yes it is mentioned the husband may reprimand his wife, or hit her. but lets not open that subject here that's another huge topic.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

If it was allowed, it would have been xclearly said so on those occasions.

Wrong - if you actually follow this premise, then bring one clear decisive ayat or hadith that clearly says that the Prophet(saw) was masoom - infallible - go on, I challenge you! A basic aqeedah point!

It is a false comparison - You seem to be fond of such things. (If the prophet was not a reliable vessel for the truth, then we could not even rely on the qur'an. We can only rely on the qur'an because the prophet was ma'sum.)

So no clear text to prove something that is part of your fundamental creed - and you ask me for a clear text on a matter of detail? Hmmmmmmmmm

You wrote:

I am not denying that we need both qur'an and sunnah. we need both and also the further interpretation of the sahabahs and more.

You should thus be careful in your demands and expectations of proof and your out of hand rejection of Islamic arguments that are stronger than those you present.

You wrote:

What you are suggesting however is that when people came to the prophet and asked about issues where the wife was not complying with their sexual demands, that the prophet did not tell them to do what they were allowed to do.

No I am not suggesting that - I am suggesting that many narrations transmit what the narrator remembered with many careful not to narrate something they were not sure of. Also the Prophet(saw) would address what he was asked without elaboration - it is thus dangerous to speculate on what he did not say as such speculation is just fantasy/guesswork with no substantiation - one can just as easily speculate against you - such speculation is just nonsense and msot scholars don't even bother going there!
An example to illustrate is the famous hadith of Jibreel who asks about what is Islam, Imaan etc The Prophet(saw) did not say Jihad was part of Islam, or obedience to parents, or obedience to husband, or the nikaah, or the prohibition of riba etc Does that mean none of these are from Islam? Can one make conclusions on what he did not say? Obviously not - as the reasons for what he did not say are too many!

You wrote:

And yes, it is that because the discussions with the Prophet and the companions would not have been merely exercises in academia, but them discussing actual real issues that had arisen in their lives.

And those who have never academically studied the texts and belittle academia are little more than a joke themselves - underachievers who have no Islamic qualifications to speak on anything substantive on Islam, unlike the scholars who pass through academia and benefit from the accumulative knowledge, experience and expertise! Scholars who deal with the simple concrete and the complex abstract and everything in between!

You wrote:

So when the sahabahs asked the prophet about issues, instead of being told "yes, take what is rightfully yours", the prophet according to you did not fulfil his duty and instead decided to not address the issue by mentioning someting that was an "irrelevant side point" by commenting on her sinfulness and how the angels cursed her.

Maybe you can highlight the part of the text where the Prophet(saw) was asked the issue about rights and how a husband can fulfil them. Or maybe you are just fabricating why the Prophet(saw) did not comment beyond what he said in the hadith without any proof whatsoever!

You wrote:

That is what the position you are holding means.

No - that is what you think it means - and as ever wrong!

You wrote:

Do you stand by that, or do you see the error in your ways?

You cannot even understand that absence of action is not evidence! It's like talking to a Wahabi who keeps repeating the mantra "the prophet(saw) did not do it!" - you can explain to him till you are blue in the face that the fact the Prophet(saw) did not do something is not evidence that it is allowed or not allowed, you need positive evidence on the topic, but he will repeat the mantra. You are no different!

Hajjar wrote:

actually i refer to the scholars i dont take my religion from no one on the forum. i may ask they may ask me, but i double check everything. i am well aware of this subject and no scholar has said force for sex is encouraged or permitted. if that was the case i would have been reluctant to get married.

yes it is mentioned the husband may reprimand his wife, or hit her. but lets not open that subject here that's another huge topic.

Maybe you should read the threads a little more carefully as scholars were cited earlier in the thread - you obviously don't check things with scholars otherwise you would not have said, "no scholar has said force for sex is encouraged or permitted."

assalamu alaikum

It's really rude, to think the worst of your muslim sister or brother within a few minutes or day of knowing them.

Its funny how we call each brother and sister in deen, and when a disagreement occurs or a flash of anger, then bye bye to the so called love. is this love for the sake of Allah?

i'd rather not talk or debate with you since you make assumptions about my personal character without even knowing me. At least a scholar gives me respect without knowing me, and has the knowledge and wisdom to back up statements.

i wish you no ill, don't think bad of you, may Allah grant you paradise, ameen.

Hajjar wrote:

assalamu alaikum

It's really rude, to think the worst of your muslim sister or brother within a few minutes or day of knowing them.

Its funny how we call each brother and sister in deen, and when a disagreement occurs or a flash of anger, then bye bye to the so called love. is this love for the sake of Allah?

i'd rather not talk or debate with you since you make assumptions about my personal character without even knowing me. At least a scholar gives me respect without knowing me, and has the knowledge and wisdom to back up statements.

i wish you no ill, don't think bad of you, may Allah grant you paradise, ameen.

And maybe if you were really sincere, not only enjoyed giving advice, but took it as well - especially after being corrected for saying something wrong about ALL scholars - most people would have simply called you a liar - I corrected you with a little more respect - maybe you would have preferred being called a liar?

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

You cannot even understand that absence of action is not evidence!

I can and that is the general case. This case is different because it is an issue that was brought up with the prophet and its not a matter of "the prophet did not do it" but a case of "the prophet was in a position where he was asked about a wife witholding sex and he did not tell the husband to force it."

Well if you understand it, then you will know perfectly well that you are trying to draw a conclusion from what is not in the hadith - how do you know the Prophet(saw) did not say use force but the narrator did not narrate that part?
How do you know that the Prophet(saw) may not have mentioned it as it was already addressed in Quran?
The problem is you don't - noone does - that's why it's just a waste of time speculation game!

You wrote:

Maybe you can highlight the part of the text where the ProphetPeace and Blessings of Allah be upon him was asked the issue about rights and how a husband can fulfil them.

Do you think that the hadith are academic in nature? No, they were specific instances that the prophet was asked about that related to the lives of real people. It was not something stuck in academia.

So you can't highlight the Prophet(saw) even being asked the question - yet you expect an answer from him!

You wrote:

The prophet now mentioning forcing sex as a solution here is quite a big thing. More, it was specified that if "the husband spends the night in anger" which would not be the case if the husband forcing her was allowed.

It may not have occurred to you but the husband can spend the night in anger with her even after forcing her - few husbands would be blissfully happy having to force a disobedienct right to fulfil his rights!

You wrote:

(from your early scholarly "proof" allowing forcing sex that you posted, the majority of them did not say she can be forced, but that she would not be entitled to support... big difference. the one that if different is the one that says "The followers of Imam Abu Hanifa said" but that does not make it the normative opinion either, it could just be the opinion of a single person)

Maybe you can provide some references where you derive what the majority said or did not say - I usually find people prevaricate the majority position - I heard many argue in the run up to the elections that the majority of scholars say it's allowed to vote, after looking into it I found majority say it is haram, with a minority saying it is fard, another minority saying it is mandoub, and another minority saying it is mubah - so much for majority! That's why if majority say it, please provide a reference otherwise I will assume it's an incorrect citation.

You wrote:

Well if you understand it, then you will know perfectly well that you are trying to draw a conclusion from what is not in the hadith - how do you know the Prophet(saw) did not say use force but the narrator did not narrate that part?
How do you know that the Prophet(saw) may not have mentioned it as it was already addressed in Quran?
The problem is you don't - noone does - that's why it's just a waste of time speculation game!

We go on the evidence we have.

And the problem is you don't have any evidence in this hadith yet you try drawing conclusions! You need further evidence to do so, which thankfully you are starting to cite in the rest of your post...

You wrote:

Do you think that the hadith are academic in nature? No, they were specific instances that the prophet was asked about that related to the lives of real people. It was not something stuck in academia.

So you can't highlight the Prophet(saw) even being asked the question - yet you expect an answer from him!

I am sure you can do your own research. There is more than one hadith and they were mentioned in a previous linked to post, but at that time you had decided it was more conveinient to disparage the person whose answer I had linked to than to discuss the contents.

I addressed the argument and the fact I disagreed with the scholar you cited.

You wrote:

More, you tried to say the hadith "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]" was only for specific occasions and not general, whereas that is not specified in the hadith and can be used to destroy your whole argument.

Even the other quotes of the ahadith you mentioned before seem to suggest that the husband had not had his way.

As I said before, this hadith does not indicate either way whether one can or cannot use force. It also is a recommendation and not an obligation so one does not even have to follow it.

You wrote:

There is also another hadith where a woman got divorced, married another man but wanted to return to her first husband and was refusing to have sex with her current husband. Again, the prophet did not mention or tell him to force her. link

Again resorting to something the prophet(saw) did not say or do which is not part of Sunnah so of no value as I've explained before.

You wrote:

The prophet now mentioning forcing sex as a solution here is quite a big thing. More, it was specified that if "the husband spends the night in anger" which would not be the case if the husband forcing her was allowed.

Because the solution is obvious - obey the husband or he can force you. The bit that is not obvious is the supernatural phenomena of the curses of the angels or what will happen on the day of judgement etc which clearly needs to be explained at some point by the Prophet(saw).

You wrote:

It may not have occurred to you but the husband can spend the night in anger with her even after forcing her - few husbands would be blissfully happy having to force a disobedienct right to fulfil his rights!

Except that there is a second part to the hadith which covers that the angels will curse her. If that was the case, there would be no need to mention the angels.

The second part needs to be mentioned - it is to motivate a woman not to let her husband be angry with her. One cannot conclude from it if he can or cannot use force.

You wrote:

anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

(from your early scholarly "proof" allowing forcing sex that you posted, the majority of them did not say she can be forced, but that she would not be entitled to support... big difference. the one that if different is the one that says "The followers of Imam Abu Hanifa said" but that does not make it the normative opinion either, it could just be the opinion of a single person)

Maybe you can provide some references where you derive what the majority said or did not say - I usually find people prevaricate the majority position - I heard many argue in the run up to the elections that the majority of scholars say it's allowed to vote, after looking into it I found majority say it is haram, with a minority saying it is fard, another minority saying it is mandoub, and another minority saying it is mubah - so much for majority! That's why if majority say it, please provide a reference otherwise I will assume it's an incorrect citation.

I never said it was not the majority view. I jut said that it may not be. and I personally doubt it is anything close to a majority view.

Hmmmm This is what you said:
"the majority of them did not say she can be forced"
which means the majority said something other than the fact she can be forced - if so, what did the majority say and where?
And most importantly, what relevance does majority have? Are you not aware of the scholars' maxim, "truth is not with the majority or minority, truth is with the argument".

//As for voting, you only get it being haraam as the majority view if you decide to ignore everyone else and say "they are all associated with X Y and Z, so they don't count".//

Nope I've seen lists of around 100 scholars who say it is haram - and around half a dozen who say it is permitted. I've also seen around half a dozen who say it is fard, a few saying it's recommended - and some who fluctuate between them based on the reality.

Using my basic maths implies that 100 is more than the others all combined - maybe you've got access to some more rigorous "academic" research...

Well you should take into account that most scholars dare not talk about politics in the Muslim world otherwise they are arrested and sent to prison... others have no particular specialism in the subject... etc etc etc

Either way, 100 odd is a lot more than a dozen or two - which is what we're comparing