Deja Vu: Rape of Wives legalized in Afganistan by new law

I'm trying to understand how marital rape was extracted from that article?

Women having a legal requirement to let their husbands doink them at least once every four nights? If she doesn't want to have sex but is forced to by law that's pretty much equivalent to being raped in my book.

You are way out of your league here.

Care to explain why, exactly?

We're talking about a specific law going through the Afghan parliament here, Meus. Not your ideal version of Islam.

Sure.

One criticism of women's rights in Islam is the notion that they are sex objects for their husbands and refer to that verse which stipulates that women should not refuse their husband's sexual needs if they are not ill or tired mentally or physically. There are obligations put forth for both husband and wife, but what those critics won't tell you is that the husband himself is also obliged to fulfil his wife sexually. There are verses in the Quran but the one that resonates this best is the following:

“Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are garments for you and you are garments for them.” [2.187]

I don't even know where this suggestion of marital rape comes from, even from that verse which reminds women of their obligation. The Prophet (saw) however warned against enforcing yourself upon her, "Not one of you should fall upon your wife like an animal" and when asked how one should approach her for sex, he replied "kisses and words".

This is why I was confused with the article. I've seen others perceive that marital rape is condoned in Islam because they find out that a woman is told not to refuse her husband, but think this is an obligation exclusive only to the wife. But assuming for a moment that it even was, that the husband had no obligation to satisfy his wife sexually, what is there in the texts that says "if she refuses, enforce upon her regardless"?

Oh, how magnanimous of them. What a progressive, happy, egalitarian nation the new Afghanistan is!

I'm not a Muslim but i'm assuming (sorry if i'm wrong) that you are. Surely a lot of the perceived inequality within Muslims is actually present. Would i be right in saying that tho it's more of a reflection of the patriarchal society rather than religion itself?

Except when a Parliament made almost entirely of Muslims passes a law stopping women from one Muslim sect from being able to refuse to have sex (and banning them from leaving their home or getting a job without their husband's permission), ostensibly because they think it will be a vote winner in a largely Muslim country, then I think we *can* talk about marital rape in Islam.




Well, objectively speaking, where does religion stop and society end? You can't divorce the two that easily - if it's happening in a society where a majority of people are fairly devout Muslims, then it is IMO entirely fair to talk about Islam being misogynystic.

Except when a Parliament made almost entirely of Muslims passes a law stopping women from one Muslim sect from being able to refuse to have sex (and banning them from leaving their home or getting a job without their husband's permission), ostensibly because they think it will be a vote winner in a largely Muslim country, then I think we *can* talk about marital rape in Islam.

The question of inequality in Islam is a two sided blade and I'll explain what I mean by that. There is firstly the question of the religion itself; all three of the Abrahamic faiths adopt a patriarchal-like system in their society in regards to men and women where by husbands are given more responsibilities (burdens from a religious point of view) and hence a longer list of authorities when in comparison to women. In short, there is no 'equality' in the sense of equal or identical roles pertained to both genders but instead differing roles which are equally valued within the religion. Despite the latter, it is not enough to satisfy some of the criticism. This is because anything that does not mean our social norms of 'rights', we automatically consider to be lesser than those rights.

The other side doesn't relate to religion itself but cultural practices. Many will use the Taliban as to measure women's rights in Islam but this would be a dishonest attempt. Some would even use honour killings, because it is done by Muslims, as an another show of the treatment of women - completing ignoring the fact that Islam's religious teachings to be quite explicit against such a thing, or that Hindu's, Sikhs, and others do the same thing. It's a mess in which people cannot distinguish between what religion actually prescribes and what those who claim to follow those prescriptions actually do, the contradiction in their actions is neither apparent to them or the critics.

True. We're blind to it but we are inheriently patriacharl despite championining a notion otherwise. There are examples protected by our secular laws that are naturally bias to women, for example, and so by definition of "equal rights" contradict our own principles. But the general characteristication of "patriachal" is devoured with memories of unequality from our history e.g. women not being allowed to vote. Well in Islam women were given that right to vote 1400 years ago, but because religion has gender roles we like to take shots at it.

Is it true that in your religion a wife has equal claim to her husband's earnings

whereas the wife's earnings are individual assets of her own unless she chooses otherwise?

Just that a girl friend of mine keeps boasting about it to her boyfriend and me.