Malaysian Islamic scholar Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria has issued a somewhat surprising ruling that Muslim women have "no right" to refuse sexual relations with their husband, asserting that forced sexual intercourse in such cases doesn't constitute marital rape.It's all-too-typical that nominal cultural relativists such as Pakman would try to stir up outrage over a position that is held by most of the world, and the vast majority of the non-white world. Remember, my post to which he was referring was one that drew attention to an Indian court upholding the Indian Penal Code's statute which states that not even forcible "rape" is criminal so long as both parties are married to each other.
Speaking to the Malay Mail Online on Sunday in an interview published the following day, Harussani said "even the Prophet (Mohammed, founder of Islam - ed.) says even when they’re riding on the back of the camel, when the husband asks her, she must give."
"So there’s no such thing as rape in marriage. This is made by European people, why should we follow?," he said.
The Muslim authority cited a hadith, teachings ascribed to Mohammed, reading: "if a husband calls his wife to his bed (to have sexual relations - ed.) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also quoted the ruling of Muslim scholar Ibn Majah back in 1854, who wrote that if a husband asks his wife "to surrender herself (to him for sexual relations - ed.) she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle."
The Malaysian paper also spoke to Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin, who said that the term marital rape "is not accurate in the practice of Islam because rape in Islam is defined as forced sexual intercourse outside of marriage," meaning a husband forcing his wife to have sex is not considered rape by the religion.
"That means if the husband does not seek consent, it cannot be considered rape, but that action is considered not polite in Islam,” he explained, commenting that such non-consensual relations are not sinful but rather are "frowned upon."
Legality is neither morality nor civility. The Left constantly attempts to conflate the three whenever it suits them, then turns around and claims "you can't legislate morality" when it comes to adultery or fornication.
The readily observable fact is that we can as easily ban adultery or fornication as "marital rape", and that both adultery and fornication cause considerable more harm than "marital rape". The fact that the Left is opposed to the first two and favors the latter is what indicates something I have pointed out all along: the purpose in criminalizing "marital rape" is to destroy the concept of marriage.
After all, what is the point of entering into a legal relationship that literally gives a man nothing at all? If marriage is not intrinsically a legal grant of sexual consent, then what is it? An agreement by which a man agrees to be held legally liable for a woman's finances in exchange for nothing?