https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-62967381

Demonstrations have continued for five successive nights, and reached several towns and cities.

Mahsa Amini died in hospital on Friday after spending three days in a coma.

In Sari, north of Tehran, large crowds cheered as women set their hijabs alight in defiant acts of protest.

Ms Amini was arrested in the capital last week by Iran's morality police, accused of breaking the law requiring women to cover their hair with a hijab, or headscarf, and their arms and legs with loose clothing.

She fell into a coma shortly after collapsing at a detention centre.

There were reports that police beat Ms Amini's head with a baton and banged her head against one of their vehicles, Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada al-Nashif said.

The police have denied that she was mistreated and said she suffered "sudden heart failure". Ms Amini's family has said she was fit and healthy.

The 22-year-old was from Kurdistan Province in western Iran, where three people were killed on Monday as security forces opened fire on protesters.

This is big news. The problem is that the tens of millions who hate the government protest by going without hijab, or burning the headscarves, but the government protests with guns.

Let's hope the benefits outweigh the costs.

I wonder if a series of women's strikes would be more effective. If women are in the labor force in significant numbers, they could hold a series of one-day strikes such as the NIH nurses used to do in England. Or the women could have home strikes -- no cooking, laundry, cleaning, etc. for several days or a week.

No sex.

Withholding sex from your husband is a sin in Islam. It causes the Angels to curse the woman.

"Mohammed's teachings in Al Bukhari states that, a wife is cursed by angels if she refuses to have sex with her husband."

It is rebellion against your husband, and I believe in most Islamic countries it is grounds for Divorce.

https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/comments/opeue9/angels_will_curse_women_who_refuse_sex_with_her/

https://maktabahalbakri.com/402-situations-when-a-wife-has-a-right-to-refuse-her-husband/

Post Views: 144

Question:

Assalamualaikum ustaz. When is it permissible for a wife to refuse her husband’s conjugal rights?

Answer:

Waalaikumussalam wrt. wbt.,

Alhamdulillah, praise and gratitude to Allah SWT for His countless blessings for us all. Praise and salutations to our beloved Prophet Muhammad PBUH, his family, companions, and all those who follow his footsteps until the Final day.

A marriage’s purpose is to develop the family institution and it is greatly encouraged in Islam. Its purpose is also to fulfil the innate need of humans, spread the Muslim ummah and induce calmness and peace in their hearts. The encouragement in Islam for marriage is so that a person is able to attain the good and benefits from it. This is stated in a hadith from Abdullah bin Amr RA, the Prophet PBUH said:

الدُّنْيَا مَتَاعٌ، وَخَيْرُ مَتَاعِ الدُّنْيَا الْمَرْأَةُ الصَّالِحَةُ

“The whole world is to be enjoyed, but the best thing in the world is a good woman.” [1]

Likewise, husband and wife are a couple who protects each other and are in need of one another. This is described in the Quran, Allah SWT states:

هُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَّكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لِبَاسٌ لَّهُنَّ

“They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them.” [2]

Syeikh Dr Mustafa al-Khin in his book stated several wisdoms of marriage, among them, are:

Fulfil the innate and natural needs of mankind.
Develop and expand the Muslim society and lineage.
Induce calmness and peace in the hearts and souls of humans.
Protect and maintain people’s character from declining and damaging.
Protecting the future generation of mankind.
Expand family ties and strengthen cooperation. [3]

Situations when a wife has a right to refuse her husband

In answering the above question, when the solemnization of a husband and wife is complete, both of them then become the clothing of the other. Allah SWT states:

هُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَّكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لِبَاسٌ لَّهُنَّ

“They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them.” [4]

Ibn Abbas said that the meaning meant in the above verse is that “They are your source of calmness and you are their source of calmness.” Whilst in Tafsir al-Tabari, it is said that the meaning of this verse is that two bodies become one, which means “intercourse”. [5]

The innate desire should be fulfilled by both parties. However, a woman should comply with the needs of her husband. This is based on a hadith of the Prophet PBUH:

إِذَا دَعَا الرَّجُلُ امْرَأَتَهُ إِلَى فِرَاشِهِ فَأَبَتْ فَبَاتَ غَضْبَانَ عَلَيْهَا لَعَنَتْهَا المَلاَئِكَةُ حَتَّى تُصْبِحَ

“When a man calls his wife to come to his bed and she refuses and does not come to him and he spends the night angry, the angels curse her till the morning.” [6]

Imam al-Nawawi said this hadith is evidence that it is prohibited for a wife to refuse her husband without any excuse permissible by syarak and menstruation is not a debilitation that can prevent her husband from requesting his wife, for he has a right for istimta’ (pleasure) with what is above the cloth (other than the vagina). This hadith means curses from the angels and this continues until the sin stops with the rising of the sun and when the husband feels like it is enough with the repentance when the wife accepts his invite to have intercourse. [7]

However, there are times in syarak when the husband is prohibited from having intercourse with his wife and this is known as syar’ie excuse. Among them are:

First: Due to menstruation. So true is the statement of Allah SWT:

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوهُنَّ حَتَّىٰ يَطْهُرْنَ

“And do not approach them until they are pure.” [8]

According to Ibn al-‘Arabi, the prohibition against approaching means it is prohibited from having intercourse with their wives. [9]

Syeikh al-Maraghi said: “When a woman takes a bath (when her menstruation completes), then approach them at the desired place that has been informed by Sunnatullah to protect it, it is the place of lineage (birth).” [10]

Second: Analogically deduced with menstruation, which is during nifas (vaginal bleeding due to childbirth).

Nifas is bleeding due to childbirth. The minimum duration for nifas is a blink of an eye (لحظة). Sometimes it continues for several days and usually, it continues for 40 days. While the maximum period for it is 60 days. According to the research done by Imam al-Syafie, the bleeding that exceeds this duration is blood due to a disease. [11]

Third: Due to an illness and she is unable to fulfil her husband’s needs physically.

Fourth: It can harm her. This means, that if sabit that intercourse can harm and hurt her, then it is permissible for her to refuse the invite from her husband.

Fifth: If the wife is performing a syarak obligation such as obligatory prayer or fast, then, it is her right to refuse her husband at the time. However, give the excuse lovingly and with respect to her husband.

Lastly, let us all reflect on the hadith of Rasullullah PBUH:


إِذَا صَلَّتِ الْمَرْأَةُ خَمْسَهَا، وَصَامَتْ شَهْرَهَا، وَحَصَّنَتْ فَرْجَهَا، وَأَطَاعَتْ زَوْجَهَا، قِيْلَ لَهَا أُدْخُلِي الْجَنَّةَ مِنْ أَيِّ أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ شِئْتِ

“When a woman observes the five times of prayer, fasts during Ramadan, preserves her chastity and obeys her husband, she may enter by any of the gates of paradise she wishes.” [12]

May the marriage built attain Baiti Jannati. We end this discussion with the supplication:

رَبَّنَا هَبْ لَنَا مِنْ أَزْوَاجِنَا وَذُرِّيَّاتِنَا قُرَّةَ أَعْيُنٍ وَاجْعَلْنَا لِلْمُتَّقِينَ إِمَامًا

“Our Lord, grant us from among our wives and offspring comfort to our eyes and make us an example for the righteous.”

Wallahu a’lam.

[1] Narrated by Muslim (1467)

[2] Surah al-Baqarah: 187

[3] See al-Fiqh al-Manhaji 4/13-16

[4] Surah al-Baqarah: 187

[5] See Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an Ta’wil Ay al-Quran, 3/490

[6] Narrated by al-Bukhari (3237) (5193)

[7] See Syarh al-Nawawi ‘ala Sahih Muslim, 10/7-8

[8] Surah al-Baqarah: 222

[9] See Ahkam al-Quran, 1/227

[10] See Tafsir al-Maraghi, 1/470

[11] See al-Fiqh al-Manhaji, 1/82

[12] Narrated by Ahmad (1664), Ibn Hibban (1296) and al-Bazzar (7480). Syeikh Syu’aib al-Arnaut stated this hadith is sahih in takhrij Sahih Ibn Hibban (4163)

Nothing new. I used to live where there were a lot of Iranians. Some would reminisce about Iran when it was a modern westernized country. One friend of mine had great childhood memories of Iran in the 50's.

Basically Iran got over taken by Marxist extremists and then the Islamic extremists who partnered with them turned on them and they took over.

Of course MI6 and CIA meddling in the country trying to control it opened the door to the radicals coming into power. Iran is the result of intelligence agency fuckery. It's a western country at it's heart though. It just is in a strategic location for geopolitical fuckery.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing new. I used to live where there were a lot
> of Iranians. Some would reminisce about Iran when
> it was a modern westernized country. One friend of
> mine had great childhood memories of Iran in the
> 50's.

Not just the 1950s. Foreign service officers and international businessmen and their families loved Iran in the 1960s and early and middle 1970s. Pakistan too. Those were among the best places to be stationed in the world.


--------------
> Basically Iran got over taken by Marxist
> extremists and then the Islamic extremists who
> partnered with them turned on them and they took
> over.

You are confusing Iran and Afghanistan. Iran went straight from the Shah to the Islamic Republic with no Marxist interval. Afghanistan went from a moderate Islam until April 1978, when a Marxist coup took place. A year later a second coup occurred, bringing a more extreme Marxist leadership. Moscow, which had had good relations with the original, almost secular government, saw the two revolutions as increasingly dangerous because the Marxists were alienating the Afghan people and destabilizing a region of critical importance to the USSR. So they invaded. The Taliban grew out of the Freedom Fighters who drove the Soviets out.


-----------------
> Of course MI6 and CIA meddling in the country
> trying to control it opened the door to the
> radicals coming into power.

That's more Iran again. In 1953 the US grew concerned when an incompetent communist, Mohammed Mosaddegh, was elected prime minister and sent a team of CIA agents under Kermit Roosevelt to Tehran to organize his ouster. The effort succeeded, the Shah was installed, and everything went well until the Shah so offended his people that the Iranian Revolution occurred. Iran thus went from a right-wing dictatorship directly to an Iranian tyranny with no Marxist stage in between.


---------------------
> It's a western
> country at it's heart though.

Very true. And one whose geopolitical interests are very similar to those of the United States. If the Mullahs were to go, the country would likely slide into a natural alliance with the West.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2022 12:49PM by Lot's Wife.

rubicon is right ~



ban marxist and islamic extremists ~

ban Christian fundamentalist extremists ~

praise Jesus ~

And no, there is no contradiction between those two imperatives.

The morality police are hooligans legalized through religious oppression.

Yes.

I wish the LDS / Mormon (women, men) would burn their garments.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish the LDS / Mormon (women, men) would burn
> their garments.

+1.0×10^9

Apparently Iran's president demanded CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour wear a headscarf to conduct an interview with him. He backed out minutes before it was scheduled when she refused. “We are in New York, where there is no law or tradition regarding headscarves,” Amanpour said.

Good for her! She should have said, "I'll wear a head scarf only if you wear a giant rubber purple penis hat and red bulb on your nose."

I've had it with men deciding what women need to do to "respect" their damn beliefs. Meanwhile even more women have been killed in Iran today. I fear for them.

Amanpour has worn hijabs and other headdresses scores of times when interviewing Islamic leaders in the past. I think this time both sides wanted a confrontation. I personally have no problem with that.

And I share your concern for Iranian women. Women's demonstrations have changed history many times, particularly protesting the disappearances in Argentina and the Afghan War in the waning days of the USSR. But the Mullahs have long memories and do not hesitate to settle old scores.

Yes, she does wear it where required. New York is not one of those places, so she was not out of line or inconsistent, IMO.

Oh, I don't object to her decision. I'm perfectly comfortable with a general pattern of respect for local cultures and the occasional deviation from that rule to make a point to brutal dictators.

Given what the Mullahs are doing to the women of Iran, no "respect" is appropriate. It's time to demonstrate that the intolerable will not be tolerated.

dagny Wrote:

> Good for her!
> I've had it with men deciding what women need to
> do to "respect" their damn beliefs. Meanwhile even
> more women have been killed in Iran today. I fear
> for them.

Freedom means other people are FREE to do things you don't like & FREE Not to do the things they request / demand.

As a naturist/ nudist, I'm 100 % onboard.

From CNN:

"Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi withdrew from a long-planned interview with CNN's chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday, after she declined a last-minute demand to wear a head scarf."

"He [Raisi's aide] referred to it as "a matter of respect," given that it is the holy months of Muharram and Safar..."

"I very politely declined on behalf of myself and CNN, and female journalists everywhere because it is not a requirement [in USA]."

"...she said that she would not cover her head to conduct an interview with an Iranian official outside a country where it is not required."


From NBC:

"...[Amanpour] characterizing the aide’s request as an “unprecedented and unexpected condition.”

“I politely declined,” Amanpour wrote. “We are in New York, where there is no law or tradition regarding headscarves. I pointed out that no previous Iranian president has required this when I have interviewed them outside Iran."


From NPR:

"Iran's state news agency did not elaborate on the reason for the sudden cancelation, but blamed Amanpour "because of refusing protocol." The protocol, it said, "is being determined by the guest."

"It's a condition that Amanpour called "unprecedented and unexpected."


-----

I heard on CNN that Christiane said that her refusal was also due to "journalistic guidelines". So far I haven't found that quote anywhere in writing or any further explanation about what she was specifically referring to. I'd be interested to know.

I didn't get the sense that she was trying to mount a protest or making a political statement.

That's why I'd like to find out about the journalistic guidelines. Maybe they include not kowtowing to an overbearing male's demands to visibly demonstrate one's subservience?

Christiane also mentioned that the demand was "last minute". I wonder if Raisi just came up with an excuse to avoid the interview for some reason, like maybe he just suddenly chickened out. Did they really expect Christiane to obey his demand? But this way they can blame her for the interview not taking place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2022 01:20PM by Nightingale.

About time.
Shoulda started agitating about 200yrs ago.

And one Iranian woman demanded that the hijab protesters be rounded up and executed. Blamed it all on the evil west. She's the barbarian.

Reports that inserectionists have taken over all of Tehran. Hope they're true!

https://twitter.com/RickyDoggin/status/1573481328804188161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1573481328804188161%7Ctwgr%5Ebf0209842aee179589965f1fe4d4ee94c12cc544%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2022%2F09%2F24%2Fseptember-24th-2024-presidential-politics-resistance-day-613%2F

Iran wasn't free under the Shah either although the situation since the revolution has been much worse.

I fear a lot of people will be killed in the streets as the Mullah's restore order. This smells to me like Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, and the Marsh Arabs after the first Gulf War.

The scene in that video clip, by the way, could rightfully be described as "intersectionalist."

Worth remembering is how unexpected, and fast, the Soviet Union collapsed. Elsewhere, there are scattered reports that Xi may be on the way out--and even under house arrest--but there's no telling that any replacement will be an improvement.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/09/is-xi-out.php

And I've come across a few articles that assert Putin's position is getting precarious. What frightens me about that is Putin's off-told anecdote about what he learned when he cornered a rat in the stairwell of his apartment building, and how fiercely--desperately--the rat fought back. Putin described the incident as a formative lesson for him. And Putin's situation may be getting desperate.

"Intersectionalist" --cute!

The probability that Xi is under house arrest is very low. He dominates all the organs of power, including the military. I would not bet on a successful coup.

The challenges Putin faces, by contrast, are real. He is already reacting to the likelihood of defeat in the Ukraine by taking bigger risks, including the missile strike near a second reactor and his decision to use sham referenda to annex the Donbas and neighboring regions. So yes, the short-term risks are rising. Heads, he wins; tails everybody loses.

But the military is in this situation a restraining force and would definitely prefer to escort him into early retirement just like what happened to Krushchev in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The best news for Putin, I think, is the impending election of a right-wing nut in Italy, for that would increase the odds of NATO's fracturing and the sanctions being lifted. So if the election in Rome goes as is expected, Putin may well gain some more time as the other power centers in Moscow wait to see how the war is affected.

There are, however, some interesting things going on.

1) Xi took a major risk when China took over Hong Kong, and although the gambit paid off senior Chinese officials may think it showed bad judgment.

2) Xi plans next month to change the Chinese constitution, written or conventional, to perpetuate his personal rule. There must be people who are uncomfortable with that.

3) Xi's partnership with Putin--we took Hong Kong, you now take Ukraine, we then take Taiwan--has not gone to plan. Beijing has alienated a lot of countries unnecessarily.

4) When Pelosi visited Taiwan, Beijing reacted with unprecedented military exercises designed to drive a wedge between Washington and Taibei. But Biden did not step back: rather, he sent more American warships to Taiwan in a way that has made China lose face. The country thus finds itself with a Russian albatross around its neck, largely isolated diplomatically, and embarrassed by America's resolution in the face of intimidation.

What does this mean? There could well be discontent in the senior ranks of the military and the CCP. Any attempted coup would have to occur over the next several weeks before the party congress in November. So it is possible that people are trying to make some sort of changes now.

But Xi's position is nevertheless exceptionally strong.

Putin is losing the support of the people -- how much remains to be seen.

What the heck is going on in Italy? I have an American acquaintance who has made his home there, and I have to wonder what he is making of the situation.

How is this analogy...

You NEED a tyrant when the medicine needed to get well tastes bad.

But in most tyrannical situations, the tyrants aren't the ones taking the medicine, but they've convinced enough of the populace that they know what they're doing and then the people are herded like cattle, instead of being seen as fellow humans.



"Hello, fellow human, how are you today? Need anything?"

But here the problem is that most humans are mini-dictators, interested only in furthering THEIR own needs.

Imagine the mormon outrage if disaffected mormons rallied to burn their garments on Temple Square...

I don't understand the Italy situation or why people keep voting in potential tyrants. What is WRONG with people!

Heck, I'm already disappointed in Liz Truss who reportedly promptly threw out even small petitions regarding animal abuse.

I'm convinced the difference between Goofus and Gallant types of leaders is whether they possess empathy.

Sorry for the digression. Thanks for your post. They are indeed interesting.

Fuel prices have risen astronomically across Europe. A friend of mine told me that the economic effect is comparable to COVID and maybe even the 2007-2009 crisis.

What do people do when they are terrified about their jobs and finances?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
------------------------
>
> What do people do when
> they are terrified about
> their jobs and finances?


I can't speak for others, but there's only so much room under my covers . . .

Thank ghawd for both American and Real Football!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuel prices have risen astronomically across
> Europe. A friend of mine told me that the
> economic effect is comparable to COVID and maybe
> even the 2007-2009 crisis.

A few years ago, Europeans (Germany especially) were warned about increasing dependence on Russia for energy. The scoffers insisted that "renewable energy" would make up the difference.

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/power%20prices%202022-08-12_7-28-09.jpg?itok=saCSV2-J

https://img.ifunny.co/images/e2e531cf79241d4b564cae9c29183cedf6de123be4d69311dd4b956c2b96306b_1.webp

Does firewood count as renewable energy?

Oh, the ill-advised reliance on Russian energy dates back decades. The first such treaty was signed in 1973, and the original SU-German pipeline was built in the early 1980s, and the volume of hydrocarbons shipped to Western Europe expanded copiously in the 1990s and early 2000s.

This a strategic error going back 50 years.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/china/xi-jinping-reappears-before-congress-intl-hnk-mic

"The wild speculation – which originated from Chinese dissident networks before being picked up and amplified by Indian media – was so intense that the hashtag “chinacoup” was trending on Twitter over the weekend."

Not all European countries have been dependent on Russian energy. The UK gets about 60% of it natural gas from its own North Sea fields. It bought a further 30% from Norway which also has North Sea reserves. The small remaining part was bought from the Middle East. Yet UK prices are skyrocketing because countries which cannot get Russian gas are now competing for the other available sources.

Gasoline prices are up in the US because of demand for oil on world markets due to lowered oil supply from Russia. The US has always bought and sold oil and is subject to world wide price pressures, the generally misunderstood mantra "energy independent" not withstanding.

There are two issues here.

Hydrocarbons are a global market, so anything that increases or decreases the supply of the fuel significantly anywhere in the world will raise prices everywhere. There is little "national" ability to lower prices unless the government decides to procure the substance at world prices and then subsidize them for domestic consumers. Without such subsidies, even the oil-rich US and UK are suffering greatly.

On another level, however, there is a difference in the pain that different countries will experience based on their infrastructure. Since Germany and other countries have built pipelines and located refineries to take advantage of hydrocarbons that ultimately flow from Russia, they can't simply switch to North Sea or Middle Eastern or American oil. They must first build new port facilities, new refineries in the right places to process the stuff, and sometimes new roads and railroads to transport a much greater volume of fuel from those ports. In addition, these countries must negotiate and sign contracts with overseas producers who are already locked into trading patterns. All of this takes time.

That's why Germany and other continental countries are suffering so much more than the UK. They cannot easily and immediately switch from pipeline to port.

But these various stresses and strains will inevitably anger voters and influence elections: witness Italy.

You are right but why are they protesting with violence in places like London. They can make their case at the Iranian embassy there without violence that British policemen have to contend with not the Iranian diplomats who watch from behind locked gates.

Similarly there are "riots" in Leicester between Moslems and Hindus. Presumably they went to England for a better life and future but seem to want to bring their ancient rivalries with them. Just my rant for the day.

I always marvel when people show such courage as to speak out or protest publicly at risk of very grave personal consequences.

I'm afraid I wouldn't be so brave.

My post was in response to Nightingale not LW.

The Iranian women are so brave; they are standing up to bullies at the risk of their own lives.

The Russian people are risking their lives by protesting against Putin's war.

Wearing the Hijab reminds me of having to wear a veil in the temple, and women having to cover their faces.

I wish people here in Utah would gather somewhere in the temple square area and do some kind of protest; at least it would show some bravery on their part to stand up on their hind legs for once.

> Wearing the Hijab reminds me of having to wear a
> veil in the temple, and women having to cover
> their faces.

That's an insightful comment.

Although I honor women's right to dress as they wish, I abhor religious requirements for women to cover their bodies, especially in contrast to lesser requirements for the men.

Agreed. Rules telling women how to dress are repugnant, whether imposed by government or by religion. But individual women, like any other individuals, should be free to dress any way they want--even if they choose to dress according to a religious tradition.

Well said, summer and LW.

It's easy to overlook the 360 degree view with some issues.

Individual choice is the goal.

"Theocracy is the best form of government," said my late father. I reminded him of the Middle East, and he brushed it off. "They don't have Jesus for their leader like we do." As usual, I looked around and said, "I don't see Jesus, never have." This grew tiresome over the decades, and I stopped playing. So now I won't accept any worldview that includes spooks. That's something I learned from Dad. I know it like the back of his forearm.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked around and said, "I don't see Jesus, never have."

Brilliant. Succinct and powerful.