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?
38 comments:
But all 50 states says its illegal BOOOMherecomestheBOOOM ready or not heeerr comes the boyzx from the sooouuth
Even his stirred-up outrage is fraudulent, as pointed out in a post at VP. There is no question he didn't do the research, as only 17 states have statute laws on the books defining what "consent" means in marriage (ie, define "marital rape"). The others automatically devolve to precedent and...common law...just like you argued. SJWs always lie.
Any person who does not see the vast difference between, on one hand, the intimate relationship of publicly declared, mutual surrender of body and troth to one other, a man and woman, in marriage, and on the other hand, a person forcing intimate contact on another, absent such a publicly declared relationship, is a fool.
The only instince when the state would have a legitimate reason to regulate the use of the body one married person by the other is if doing so caused foreseeabe, actual physical injury or disease. Hurt feelings between the partners is just not a reason for government regulation. My wife has a right to use my body for pleasure and procreation and I hers. That is what our bodies are designed FOR. Where is the crime? This should not even be a subject for discussion. This is especially so in a state with no fault divorce, because either party can end the marriage and thereby cut off the personal rights of the marriage partner.
After all, what is the point of entering into a legal relationship that literally gives a man nothing at all?
Good question. I'd love to see the marriage-minded women, Churchians, and tradcons answer it. The answer, of course, is there is no point. You can get sex, companionship, and children outside of marriage.
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?
Marriage does not happen just between two people, but between them and a socially recognized authority.
The whole point of redefining marriage is to accommodate it to the socially accepted authority: our betters, the politicians and bureaucrats; those we run to like scared savages when it rains too much or not enough so that they in their wisdom and with their magic will change the weather.
Modern American marriage is essentially slavery for most men. Take it from someone who knowns.
The money question that is never asked in these situations is, "Why would a woman marry a man she doesn't want to have sex with?"
"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."
I have to disagree with this statement. I think there is no conflation. Sin is transgression of the law. Therefore, law is the standards for morality and even civility. The issue isn't conflating the three as one. The issue is the right to legislate. Either law/moral code is a function of societal agreement (magically authoritative because a majority of men believe it to be so) and evolves or it comes from something external. I hold to the external view, obviously.
If it weren't for statist churchians deriving their whole moral code from the Model Penal Code, we wouldn't see this confusion as to controlling law. As it stands today, a close reading of God's laws handed down through Moses are rather alien to our way of thinking--more now than ever as evidenced by the historical defense to marital rape. The very concept of rape in a careful reading of Deut 22 vs. Exodus 22 will blow most churchians' minds. It doesn't exist like the Model Penal Code and the Common Law prohibit it.
Now we are seeing the weak spot created by such antinomianism. If man can decide what is moral/legal, what is stopping him from abolishing the very reasons for marriage (on the man's side, exclusive sexual rights to a woman)? It is an intentional surrender on the part of Christians who have rejected God's laws as moral code and Christians will continue to lose credibility and ground until they take back that weapon.
Sin is transgression of the law.
"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?"
That, in my opinion, is the unassailable money shot.
Very nice Vox
"The money question that is never asked in these situations is, "Why would a woman marry a man she doesn't want to have sex with?"
So she can take his money and ruin his life.
my favorite part is how knowing this, SJW still defend islam even though it goes against their beliefs. their doublethink would make winston smith proud.
GOD instituted marriage. The devil hates anything GOD does so it stands to reason he wants to destroy it. As SJW's are evil, having only a form of morality, they've chosen their side. They want marriage destroyed because ultimately they hate that which is good, they hate GOD almighty.
Well I understand the part about these cowards not criticizing islam - those cowards don't want their heads cut off. Seems to me that we non-Churchians Christians could take a lesson from this but unfortunately that shall not murder decree stays my hand. Dang it.
After all, what is the point of entering into a legal relationship that literally gives a man nothing at all?
Good question. I'd love to see the marriage-minded women, Churchians, and tradcons answer it. The answer, of course, is there is no point. You can get sex, companionship, and children outside of marriage.
@Fogey
Problem is, there are practicing Christians like me who believe that you'd go to hell unless you were married to the woman.
I still insist the best answer is to get the state the f*ck out of marriage completely.
Well I understand the part about these cowards not criticizing islam - those cowards don't want their heads cut off. Seems to me that we non-Churchians Christians could take a lesson from this but unfortunately that shall not murder decree stays my hand. Dang it.
@Remo
I really don't think it's a fear of beheading that's holding back SJWs from criticizing Islam. Because SJWs represent evil, they're only going to attack Christianity, since Islam doesn't save men's souls.
@Corv ~ I hear you. I used to think that way. I haven't wasted blood, sweat, and tears creating the Fogey Empire only to put it at risk in a union with a woman who may come to hate me, which, given my character, is a very real possibility. I've already done the marriage and divorce thing ince, not eager to repeat. I think the challenge is to find a girl willing to have kids without getting married.
Because SJWs represent evil, they're only going to attack Christianity, since Islam doesn't save men's souls.
Right. They don't criticize Islam because they're on the same side -- against Christendom. So all my conservative friends who post on Facebook about Muslims killing women or homosexuals, thinking that's going to turn the left against Muslims, just don't get it. That's not news to leftists, but they don't care, because it's acceptable collateral damage being done by an ally in a common cause.
@Corvinus, would an exclusive sexual relationship with a woman you aren't married to be similar to Old Testament concubinage?
@Laguna Beach Fogey: "Good question. I'd love to see the marriage-minded women, Churchians, and tradcons answer it. The answer, of course, is there is no point [to marriage]. You can get sex, companionship, and children outside of marriage."
To a true-hearted Christian man seeking a true-hearted Christian woman, marriage has a lot to offer. For starters, there is no expression of sexuality for an actual Christian outside of marriage. Unmarried women in the church should be submitting under their church's leadership and their family's leadership (assuming their parents are in the church), keeping themselves pure from the immorality of the world.
Such marriage, within the church, between two members of the church and from families who are most likely members in the church as well, has a great deal to offer for sex, companionship, and raising up children in the church as well. And a true-hearted Christian woman will not consider divorce an option, ever. Separation, maybe, for a husband who has engaged in gross wickedness and is excommunicated out of the church. Experience shows that very few women choose separation when the prospect of suing for support or remarrying some new guy is not on the table.
Women have lived a life of immorality are welcome to join the church, but they need to demonstrate a lifestyle of repentance, which for most will involve a lifestyle of celibacy (or returning to their first husband). The purpose of marriage is to glorify God, not to pursue one's own personal fulfillment.
There is no divorce or remarriage either (other than for widows & widowers).
@tacticaltoolbox: "If it weren't for statist churchians deriving their whole moral code from the Model Penal Code, we wouldn't see this confusion as to controlling law."
A simple reading of Paul's commandments to the Corinthians to stop suing each other should be enough to show that Christians aren't called to derive their morality from man's unjust law.
We're supposed to be utterly set apart, and to be a witness who is in the world, but not of the world. A start would be us living by a completely different moral code. The Sermon on the Mount makes it pretty clear just what that moral code is. (Including that whole passage about lusting & adultery that churchians so love to distort, whilst they conveniently ignore Jesus' blanket prohibition on divorce & remarriage.)
@Laguna Beach Fogey
Considering the teachings of Christianity for about 1,900 years, remarriage is no less of a sin than outright fornication or adultery, so I broker no fault with you for choosing not to enter an adulterous remarriage.
Part of the problem we're seeing is that it has been upheld by our new Moral Penal Code that remarriage is the holy and right expression, and what really should be expected from a man.
The sooner men reject this, the better. Remarriage has zero, zip, zilch to offer a man, and it exists as basically a giant backup plan for many women deciding whether or not to nuke their marriages.
Recently in an argument (that I tried to stay out of) a young lady argued that marital rape is, in fact, the most common form of rape that there is.
And this was a traditional-conservative, religious (Reformed background), homeschooled kind of young lady.
Back in my liberal-progressive days, I used to hang out with people who worked in rape-crisis counselling. I heard lots of stories. We never ran into a single case of marital rape, anywhere, ever, despite lots and lots of married grad students around. Nearly every case involved drunken freshmen at off-campus parties (drinking age here is 18 or 19) with members of athletic teams who were straight up thugs, and who would have never made into the college other than a need to fill out an athletic team.
Barely even had any "date rape" type situations.
When pressed why they didn't want to press charges, the usual answer was "Well I don't want to not get invited to the next off campus party". Even my borderline radfem friends would get upset about that.
"An agreement by which a man agrees to be held legally liable for a woman's finances in exchange for nothing?"
It loses some of its appeal when you put it in those terms, doesn't it?
@Noah B
I don't see any benefit marriage has outside of special meaning and value a church places upon it.
Such as, for example, restricting the women in the church to not have sex outside of marriage.
If a church refuses to do this, then the "marriage" it has to offer is no marriage at all, and has no value at all.
And the church must have beliefs and practices which guarantee the sexual integrity of its young women. That's not going to be compatible with mainstream Christian practices like sending 18 year olds off to college.
Fogey,
Your bad experience doesn't remove God's making marriage the proper bounds for sex. Participating in ongoing sin to fulfill your own pleasure may work for you, but that is more because you have made your heart calloused rather than some indication of what is proper.
It also doesn't bode well for long term civilization, as Vox has noted elsewhere.
My wife had said "companionship" in the past Cail, but I believe she has at least come to see that men can get companionship many other ways and that the companionship she wants is not the same as what a man wants.
That said, I do see more value in my wife than just a sex partner. Companionship and commitment play a role, but not enough to run the risk of modern marriage all by themselves.
Brad, I'll let LBF speak for himself, but I've taken a similar view on the matter simply for the reason that marriage in America simply doesn't involve God. It's entirely in the hands of the state which has demonstrated beyond all doubts that their allegiance does not lie with either God or any semblance of fairness or respect for historical precedent or common law.
So in the spirit of the matter, I'd say agreeing with your lady to be sexually exclusive and share resources for the purpose of raising children is much closer to an actual marriage than a document the state can hand you.
I'm starting to feel triggered.
[TRIGGER WARNING: Thoughtcrimes against the holy sacrament of birth control]
Marriage is for sex and for children (and the two are supposed to go together, and did, before scientists figured out how to use Mexican yams to mass-sterilise young women).
Companionship is something men should be finding with their brethren in the church. Women just aren't ideal companions and friends for men. The whole romantic notion of "I want to marry my best friend" is rubbish invented during the Enlightenment.
@LBF: "So in the spirit of the matter, I'd say agreeing with your lady to be sexually exclusive and share resources for the purpose of raising children is much closer to an actual marriage than a document the state can hand you."
I see your statement, but raise you that the authority who should be issuing a document to you is the church. And by "church" I mean a church that exercises enough authority and control over its members to prevent them from divorcing.
"An agreement by which a man agrees to be held legally liable for a woman's finances in exchange for nothing?"
Precisely. And yet so many men sign it.
Tridekka and John,
Fogey has indicated he participates in sexual activity now with different women (he can correct me if I am wrong). That would be prohibitted by any Christian standard. He can do whatever he wants, but he has strayed from Christianity.
I could see the case of a marriage outside the state that was sanctified by a Church. I might even be swayed against the latter if it was "for life" and not disolvable. I have yet to see that, especially among those who refuse to marry, yet are not chaste.
You can and possibly should avoid modern marraige, though you must remain chaste outside of that. Sexual interactions with multiple partners is not part of what is allowed by God. It is certainly allowed by man though.
"An agreement by which a man agrees to be held legally liable for a woman's finances in exchange for nothing?"
Precisely. And yet so many men sign it.
I thought most contracts required you to get something out of the deal to be enforceable. That is clearly not true in this case, but it does demonstrate the idiocy of the whole picture here.
Sexual relations outside of marriage (fornication & adultery) and lack of sex within Marriage 2.0/divorce are really just two sides of the same coin.
A man who wishes to have honour will participate in neither.
John: that quote you attribute to LBF regarding 'the spirit of the matter' was something I said. In regards to what you said about a church with authority over it's members, I'd say that something along those lines would be the ideal compared to the state being involved. However, since marriage is such an integral part of a successful society and nation, government will always be involved.
Well next time an idiot SJW rants that their particular idea or whatever is a universalist one they completely disqualify themselves and will show themselves to be the idiots they are to the great unwashed masses.
@Corvinus, would an exclusive sexual relationship with a woman you aren't married to be similar to Old Testament concubinage?
Old Testament concubinage was permitted "out of the hardness of men's hearts", but under Jesus Christ, that permission was abolished.
Now one might argue that now, i.e., the Age of the SJW, men's hearts are hardened again and this permission should therefore be re-established, but unfortunately, unless some legitimate divine authority says so, I have to go along with the assumption that it isn't.
The "because of the hardness of your hearts" passage is about divorce.
Where is the passage where it is announced that concubinage or polygamy are now prohibited?
Where is the passage where it is announced that concubinage or polygamy are now prohibited?
Marrying another woman is considered adultery; it doesn't matter if the first wife is divorced or not. In fact, if you read the passage, it's implied that polygamy was already banned by Jesus, and the question now was if divorce was permissible. So both concubinage and polygamy are considered adultery under the new Law, just as fornication is.
Claiming it's implied isn't convincing at all.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.