Muslim women and Islam: a nikah made in Hell, Part 2

Part 1

No one has the right, not the President, the Parliament, or anyone, to restrict something God has allowed. Islam doesn't specify an age for marriage. Why do they look into something that is not an issue? Why do they make a problem out of nothing? I want to ask, why is early marriage a problem? (Sheikh Muhammad al-Hazbi)

Yemeni Sheikh Muhammad al-Hazbi is 100% correct. If the good sheikh wants to marry and have sex with a suckling baby, or one still in the cradle, "No one has the right, not the President, the Parliament, or anyone, to restrict something God has allowed." People who make a problem of what God has allowed distress the sheikh, for he is a good Muslim. Should the sheikh desire a newborn baby, he would have to, of course, first marry her, for pre-marital sex is fornication, something that God does not permit to Muslims. The sheikh does not pluck things out of the air. What he claims is indeed what God permits. Being a sheikh, one can expect him to be familiar with Shari'a, "Sacred Law," as Shari'a describes itself, and Sacred law says:

If one of several guardians of an infant, wbo are all upon an equality, in point of guardianship, contract the infant in marriage, the marriage is valid and binding upon all the other guardians, and no one of them is at liberty to annul it. (Al-Hidayah Volume II, p155.) (My emphasis and all bold text within quotations to follow)

The sheikh knows that God is clear about what an infant is, for he will have read of: “an infant in the cradle,” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book M13.0); “the infant is able to suffice with another [woman]’s milk,” (Book O3.6)

When Shiekh Al-Hazbi humbly asks, "Why is early marriage a problem?" he is entirely justified, for it is inconceivable that a good Muslim, and a knowledgeable one at that, should question God.

Lest I be accused of "Islamophobia," let me hasten to mention one instance in which a man is indeed prohibited from having sex with his wife:

When a man has had sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of nine years, and has ruptured the parts, it is unlawful for him to have further connection with her, but she is not released from her ties, if connected with him by marriage or slavery. If no rupture has taken place, the prohibition is not incurred according to the most valid opinion.

Not only that. Let me further hasten to point out that Islam is not irredeemably barbaric, since Shari'a further stipulates:

A full indemnity is paid, ...for injuring the wall between vagina and rectum so they become one aperture.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book O4.13).

I do wish that all those feminists, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who speak without evidence of how Islam empowers women, would present these laws as proof of Islamic compassion and concern for the wellbeing of wives, even newborn ones. No wife is too young to enjoy the benefits of Shari'a protection.

The occasion of the uproar in the Yemeni Parliament was the attempt on the part of some to introduce a minimum age for marriage. One might legitimately wonder whether the sheikh is defending the sanctity of Islamic law, or his Islamic permission to have sex with a baby. Most Muslim men aggressively defend the inviolability of God permitting a man to have sex with girls of any age, and there are women who do likewise. "It is allowed in Islam" is an unassailable refrain.

The matter of child marriage has caused uproar in the Yemeni, Pakistani, Kuwaiti, Iraqi and other legislatures in the Muslim world, where the matter is never resolved, because it cannot be resolved. The facts of Islam do not permit it to be resolved. Those facts do not permit women any sexual latitude of any kind ever. She is permitted to have sex only in marriage, and she may marry only a Muslim. The iniquity does not end there. Shari'a refers to:

"Sexual intercourse of a man with a woman through the vagina without lawful ownership (of such access)" Al-Hidayah, Chapter 98, 'The Nature of Intercourse That Gives Rise to Hadd', p211. In other words, in Islam, the act of marriage is a man's purchase of exclusive access to a woman's vagina. "Mahr (bride price) is the counter-value of access to physical contact, therefore, it must be paid" Al-Hidayah, Book IV, 'Marriage', p502. In the same book, Islamic scholar Idriss Al-Shafi'i, founder of one of the schools of jurisprudence, is quoted as follows:

The reason is that ownership of nikah (permitted sexual intercourse) is common between the two spouses so that she can demand sexual intercourse just as he has the right to demand access. Likewise, the lawful right to benefit from the subject-matter of nikah is common between them.

"The term nikah in its original application meant union [sexual intercourse, AP]. Thereafter, the term came to be applied to union in marriage." Some authorities suggest the vulgar equivalent to be the exact meaning. Islamic marriage is most decidedly not about love. It is strictly a contract for sex. "Subjective intent is exceedingly difficult to determine and prove, Islamic law follows the objective theory of contracts," (ffn. 1 and 2, Al-Hidayah, Book VI, Marriage, p475). "The word tazwij expresses union, while the word nikah means joining, and there is no joining or union at all between the owner and the owned." So, "The contract of nikah is concluded by using the word bay' (exchange)," (p476).

Only through presenting of men and women as buyers and sellers of sex can they be described as equal. When a man says to his wife three times, "I divorce you," or "You are divorced" or even just "Divorced!" then he has given up his ownership of access to her vagina and her vagina now becomes available for another Muslim to purchase access to, while he, of course, throughout the marriage, was free to purchase access to other women's vaginas. Already here the "equality" of buyer and seller breaks down.

Talaaq (divorce) has been prescribed to eliminate these two [reciprocal] rights, therefore, it is valid to associate divorce with the man just as it is valid to associate it with her, as in the case of irrevocable separation and prohibition. We maintain that divorce is prescribed for the removal of the restrictions of marriage.

However, if he has only said "Divorced!" twice, he has simply decided not to exercise his right of access to her vagina for the time being. It is not a cancellation of ownership and for a long as this "state of nikah" lasts, she remains prohibited from selling access to her vagina to another. Imam Shafi'i explains:

These restrictions [of marriage] apply to her and not to the husband. ...It is she who is prevented from marrying another husband. If moving out of nikah is for the elimination of ownership, then it works against her, because it is she who is owned, while the husband is the owner. It is for this reason that she is referred to as one in a state of nikah.

In contradistinction, pertaining to what has come to be called 'triple-talaaq', Al-Shafi'i continues:

This [state of nikah] is distinguished from irrevocable separation as it refers to the bond that is common between them. It is also distinguished from prohibition as that is the elimination of lawful access to each other, therefore, it is valid to associate it with them. It is, however, not valid to associate divorce [issued only twice] except with her. (pp579-80)

Should her husband cease to be a Muslim, their marriage is automatically terminated. This, as it turns out, is the only form of Islamic divorce that is unfair to both parties, rather than just to the woman. In one form of divorce, Li'an, as absurd as it is, Islamic marriage gets closest to fairness and parity between husband and wife. This pertains to allegations of adultery.

As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false. And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth. (Qur'an 24:6-9)

The website Islam Online explains:

If the husband refuses to testify after the accusation, he is to be whipped eighty lashes for slander, according to Malik, Ahmad, and Ash-Shafi`i. Abu Hanifah said the man should not be punished for slander but should be imprisoned until he agrees to testify or until he calls himself a liar. If he calls himself a liar, he will be whipped for slander.

According to Malik and Ash-Shafi`i held that [if] the wife refuses to testify, she is punished for adultery [stoned to death, AP]. Abu Hanifah states that the woman should not be punished for adultery, but should be imprisoned until she agrees to testify or until she admits that she has committed adultery. This confession will render her to punishment.” https://fiqh.islamonline.net/en/public-imprecation-al-lian/

The unfairness of Islamic marriage on the woman does not end with divorce. She also loses her children because, "The child belongs to one who has legal access for intercourse," i.e., the husband, not the wife. "The child belongs to (husband or master of) the woman," (Musnad Ahmad 173). The idea here is that it is from his seed that a child grows. She merely provided the soil. In a case where paternity was in dispute, "The Messenger of Allah decided that the child was to [be] attributed to the one on whose bed it was born," (Sunan Abi Dawud 2275). Further, "The child is for the bed (i.e., belongs to the husband) and the fornicator gets nothing!" (Sunan Ibn Majah 2006). Even where a recognised father is prohibited from claiming paternity, "[It] is an illegitimate child who belongs to his mother’s people, whoever they are, whether she is a free woman or a slave." (Sunan Ibn Majah 2746) (My emphasis). Yet, the iniquity of Islamic marriage and divorce does not end there. Because Islamic marriage, nikah, is the man's purchase of access to a woman's vagina:

Rights of access for sex are not marketable at the time of moving out of the contract, while the counter-value is marketable. This is distinguished from nikah, because rights of access for sex are marketable at the time of entry into the contract. (Al-Hidayah, Chapter 69.3 'Mubara'ah - Divorce with no Liabilities, p35)

Where there are no complications of unlawful sex, or allegations of unlawful sex, a Muslim man may instantly divorce his wife, as is widely known. A husband might forfeit this pre-eminence and agree to a clean-break split. She, however, must ask him for divorce, which he may grant or refuse for any or no reason. She may offer to "ransom herself" (Qur'an 2:229) by paying him to divorce her, and he might turn down the offer. He might offer to divorce her for a hefty compensation that she is unable to pay. Her last resort is to appeal to a Shari'a Court for a granting of divorce. Such a court, however, will go to great length to avoid granting her a divorce. If she succeeds in getting divorced, her troubles may not be over, for she is now "soiled goods", as discussed in Part 1.

Where a couple is fully divorced (triple-talaaq), and they wish to reconcile (in Shari'a-speak, "the husband wishes to take her back"), this is when the Muslim norm of soiled goods stands out in all its repulsiveness, where the man is punished through the woman's degradation. Qur'an 2:230 stipulates:

And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter, until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her, it is no sin for both of them that they come together again...

A divorced Muslim woman wishes to have a former husband back. This is not the way Islam sees it. Recall that the Shari'a conception is that it is the husband who wishes to take her back, and for that Shari'a will punish him. She must first marry another man and that man must have sex with her, else the marriage is not valid for the purpose of returning to her original husband, who can now only get her back as soiled goods.

She must marry another man first, but only the most undesirable men would now consider her for a first wife. Desirable men will only consider her for a second, third or fourth wife. Very desirable men, such as wealthy men or those of high social status, might consider her for a secret wife, or even as a regular legal prostitute (Shari'a provides, brother). Even if she agrees to marry under such conditions, she has no guarantee that her (contingency) husband will grant her divorce so she might finally marry the man she is trying to return to.

Think about this very carefully, dear reader. Consider what horrible vices such demands might engender. So the woman is desperate and has no decent friend with whom she might make an arrangement to marry and divorce. No problem, sister. Some henna-bearded sheikh has a brother, son, cousin, uncle, friend who might be able to come up with something. As it turns out, there is a whole industry of brothers, sons, cousins, uncles, and friends "prepared to help," for a fee, of course. It might be her original husband, or herself, or the two of them together, who stump up the cash, whichever way, she now has to pimp herself out, and with no guarantee that the pimping will ever end. Of course, in theory she could ask for a temporary marriage, but since she has no cards, why would a primitive Muslim male agree to such a restriction. He will go for one of the no-expiry-date options, with all the prerogatives of a Muslim husband. But lest I be thought of as "Islamophobic," I hasten to point out that she has not lost her right to appeal to a Shari'a Court for a divorce from this husband that she only married in order to be able to return to her first husband. Such an industry of helpful males exists in every Hell-hole where Shari'a is practised.

Keep in mind that it is impermissible for a Muslim to ever say anything that might bring Islam into disrepute. As might be expected, Muslim males invariably defend their religion's disreputable practices by simply pointing out, quite correctly, that "it's allowed in Islam". The real tragedy is the many Muslim women who defend these practices. They either ignore entirely what Islamic scripture and law say, or they cherry-pick their way through the texts, or they "interpret" their way through the texts to a romanticised Islam. They are uniquely blind to Muslim male excess all around them, or they wish it away by saying "They do not represent Islam," or "Islam is perfect; we Muslims are the problem". Whichever is the case, they all stand on their own sentimentality to appeal to the better conscience of Muslim males. And when the folly of such appeal rises inexorably before them, they appeal to the better conscience of "good progressive Muslims". Some seek refuge in pouring their sentimentality out onto the pages of folksy books such as Allah, Liberty and Love, or intellectually dishonest ones such as Qur'an and Women. Other Muslim women seek to protect Islam by repeating the term "Islamic extremism" over and over, thereby to conjure their idealised Islam into reality. These poor sisters have to do this, for there are only two ways out: one way would be to leave Islam; the other would be to abandon themselves it, like ISIS brides or "Palestinian" mothers.

And what about all the "moderate Muslim" sheikhs who daily smell the fetid underbelly of their glorious faith, its gross abasement of women and how it turns Muslim men into vile barbarians? What do they have to say? Well, we can let Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi speak for all of them:

I cannot make haram what Allah has made halal.

Picture credits:

TNasreen - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79750688

Screenshot Sheikh Muhammad al-Hazbi from "Child Marriage And Rape Is Still Legal In Yemen" (2013), Journeyman Pictures, YouTube, 1 Sept 2016 https://youtu.be/HmP66xGpjGo

Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE0SJiuSpbQ

Samuel Lane, Stealing Innocence - Child Marriage in Pakistan (Plan 2011).pdf