Islamophobic bigots and their tricks |
As is their wont, Christian bigots have been rabble rousing in their immature (and perverted) attempts at sowing seeds of doubt in the Muslim mind. All this despite the fact that Christianity does not prohibit anal sex. Perhaps that is the reason why these bigots are so active as they know Islamic teachings of sexual relationships are free from such unnatural perversions.
Before discussing Islam’s view on the subject and analysing the copy and paste spiel the Christian bigot was utilizing we should rehearse the Christian view on anal sex.
Christian view on anal sex
Anal sex (between husband and wife) is not forbidden in Trinitarian Christianity though homosexuality is prohibited despite the protestations of many modern day Christians who wish to conform to secular views on sexuality. In fact, the perverted (anonymous) Christian bigot (s) could well interpret the Bible as not only allowing anal sex but other sexual practices the husand desires as the Bible states:
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. [Ephesians 5:24, NIV]
Of course, the Bible is the Christian’s business and we shall leave Christians to decide whether anal sex is prohibited or not. I know of no such prohibition in the Bible and would welcome a Christian to add further insight to the discussion.
I genuinely believe the Christian bigot’s efforts are motivated by a tacit admission that Christianity has not laid down clear rules in this regard – thus he tries to bring Islam down to such a level.
Islamic view on anal sex
“All the religious scholars are of the opinion that anal sexual intercourse with a woman is unlawful” [1]
Forget about Islamic scholars for a second, what about the Prophet Muhammad (p)? There are ahadith (narrations) from the Prophet telling us the practice of anal sex is FORBIDDEN:
1 – It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who has intercourse with his wife in her back passage has disavowed himself of that which was revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” Narrated by Abu Dawood (3904); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
2 – It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah will not look at a man who has intercourse with a woman in her back passage.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1165); classed as saheeh by Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid in al-Ilmaam (2/660) and by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
3 – It was narrated that Khuzaymah ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah is not too shy to tell the truth” three times. “Do not have intercourse with women in their back passages.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah (1924); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
And there are many similar ahaadeeth. Al-Tahhaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Sharh Ma’aani al-Athaar (3/43): The reports concerning that reach the level of tawaatur. [2]
As regards your question, anal intercourse with one's wife is a major sin, whether it occurs at the time of menstruation or not. The Prophet SAWS (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) cursed the one who does this: "Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum" (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 2/479; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5865). [5]
The Prophet SAWS (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) also said: "The one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or who goes to a fortune-teller, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, no. 1/243; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5918). [5]
So there you have reports from the Prophet which teach us anal sex is forbidden in Islam.
Christian bigots and Surah 2:223
Before discussing what the Christian bigot brought to the table we should offer a scholarly view upon Surah 2:223 as the bigot was trying to influence Muslims towards his debauched and unscholarly view.
Some people imagine that it is permissible to have intercourse with one’s wife in her back passage. They understand from the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223] that Allaah has permitted everything in this verse, even intercourse in the back passage.
This misinterpretation is reinforced for them when they read the hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh – and perhaps this is the hadeeth referred to by the questioner – in which it says: It was narrated that Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Jews used to say that if (the man) had intercourse from behind, the child would be born with a squint. Then the verse “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223] was revealed.
But this is a misunderstanding of the verse. Allaah says “so go to your tilth when or how you will” which means that all variations of intercourse are permitted, so long as it is in the place of tilth, i.e., the vagina, not the back passage. So it is permissible for a man to have intercourse with his wife from behind or from in front or lying on their sides so long as it is in the place of tilth and not the back passage.
The evidence for that is Muslim’s report (1435) of the hadeeth of Jaabir quoted above about the reason for the revelation of this verse, in which it says: If he wishes, when she is lying on her front and if he wishes when she is not lying on her front, so long as that is in only one opening.
In Abu Dawood’s report of the same hadeeth (2163) it says: It was narrated that Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir said: I heard Jaabir say: The Jews say that if a man has intercourse with his wife in her vagina from behind, the child will have a squint. Then Allaah revealed the words (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223].
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi (2980) in a report which he classed as hasan, it was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: ‘Umar came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allaah, I am doomed! He said: “Why are you doomed?” He said: I changed my direction last night. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not say anything. Then this verse was revealed to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223]. So approach from the front or the back, but avoid the back passage and the time of menses. Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
These ahaadeeth and reports explain what is meant by the verse. So it is not permissible for the Muslim to go beyond that and understand it in ways that are not indicated by the reports or by linguistic usage. [3]
Christian bigots on Ibn Umar (ra)
The Christian bigot brought forward a copy and paste concerning Ibn Umar (ra), like the typical perverted bigot he capitalised the word “anuses”:
"It came down regarding approaching women in their ANUSES." [al-Tabari, Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir. Jami al-Bayan an Ta'wil Aay al-Qur'an [AKA. Tafsir al Tabari]. Ed. Abd Allah Ibn Abd al-Mushin al Turki. 26 vols. Cairo: Hajr Center, AH 1422/AD 2001. Print. v. 3 p.751]
So we have already seen the Prophet Muhammad forbade (prohibited) the practice of anal sex yet this Christian bigot is trying to convince us that anal sex is allowed – he is clearly confusing Christianity with Islam either that or he is utterly ignorant of the narrations of the Prophet FORBIDDING anal sex.
However, let’s put the bigot out of his misery and offer the scholarly explanation concerning Ibn Umar (ra) – who was either misunderstood or in error initially and later changed his view to forbid anal sex upon receiving further information:
Perhaps the question is also referring to what al-Bukhaari narrated from Naafi’ from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him): “so go to your tilth when or how you will”; he said: “He may approach her from …”
Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari (8/189):
This is how it appears in all the texts. It does not mention what comes after the word “from”. End quote.
And he quoted what is mentioned in some reports elsewhere than in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, that Ibn ‘Umar said: He may approach her in her back passage.
But the scholars answered that in two ways:
1 – That it was a mistake on the part of some of those who narrated it from Ibn ‘Umar, and they understood from it that it was permissible to have intercourse in the back passage, when in fact he was narrating that it is permissible to have intercourse with one's wife in her vagina from behind, based on what is mentioned in saheeh reports from him that he regarded it as haraam to have intercourse with one’s wife in her back passage. And al-Nasaa’i narrated in al-Sunan al-Kubra (5/315) with a saheeh isnaad that Ibn ‘Umar was asked about that and he said: Would a Muslim do that?!
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Tahdheeb al-Sunan (2/146):
It is narrated in a saheeh report that he interpreted the verse as referring to intercourse in the vagina coming from the back, which is what was narrated from Naafi’. Those who thought that Naafi’ improved of intercourse in the back passage are gravely mistaken; rather what he meant was having intercourse from the back in the vagina. Thus they were confused when they thought that when he said “from the back” he meant the back passage; but what he meant by that was coming from the back but putting it in the place of intercourse, namely the vagina. Those people were confused when they understood the words of Naafi’ “from the back” as meaning “in the back (passage)”.
The second answer is:
That this was ijtihaad on the part of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) about the meaning of the verse. The Sunnah and the views of all the Sahaabah indicate that it was an incorrect ijtihaad. Abu Dawood (2164) narrated, in a report that was classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, that Ibn ‘Abbaas said:
Ibn ‘Umar – may Allaah forgive him – imagined, and this was a tribe of the Ansaar who had been idol-worshippers, along with this tribe of the Jews, who were people of the Book, and thought that they (the Jews) were superior to them in knowledge; they used to follow their examples in many of their deeds.. The people of the Book did not have intercourse with their wives except on their sides, and that was most concealing for the woman. This tribe of the Ansaar had adopted that from them. And this tribe of Quraysh used to make the woman lie in whatever position they wanted and enjoy them in various ways. When the Muhaajiroon came to Madeenah, one of their men married a woman of the Ansaar, and he went to do that with her but she objected and said: We have intercourse lying on our sides, so do that or keep away from me. Their problem got worse until news of that reached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and Allaah revealed the words (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223]., i.e., from the front or the back or lying, meaning the place of birth.
This could support the reports that Ibn ‘Umar used to say that it was permissible to have intercourse in the back passage, but then perhaps he came back to the correct view, after Ibn ‘Abbaas or someone else explained to him the reason why this verse was revealed and what its correct meaning was. Hence it is proven – as stated above – that he said that it was haraam, and he said: Would a Muslim do that?!
To conclude: Islam forbids this action, and there is nothing to indicate that it is permissible. The one who thinks that there is anything in the Qur’aan and Sunnah to indicate that is mistaken. [4]
Christian bigot and Ibn al-Arabi
The bigot also brought some copy and paste job concerning Ibn al Arabi. His copy and paste does not tell us what was being made permissible, thus it pointless! In any case, we have already seen sayings from the Prophet Muhammad (p) [see above] letting us know anal sex is forbidden – this is our proof text!
Not only that, we have also seen the views of all the sahaba (companions of the Prophet) which considered anal sex to be forbidden. All four schools of fiqh (jurisprudence) forbid this act.
For thoroughness here is the ambiguous and irrelevant copy and paste from the bigot concerning Ibn Al Arabi:
Ibn al-'Arabi "found support to its permissibility among a noble group of the Companions and the followers of Malik in several stories." [Ibn al-Arabi, Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn 'Abd Allah. Ahkam al-Qur'an. Ed. T. Muhammad 'Abd al-Qadir 'Ata. 4 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiya, AH 1424/AD 2003. Print. v. 1 p. 238. Trans. by Former Muslim]
Conclusion
FACT: Islam forbids anal sex whilst Christianity does not.
The Christian bigot who was striving to promote the perverted agenda of other Christian bigots simply highlights his ignorance of Islam and Christianity. A Muslim named Sam summed the bigot's mistaken effort up:
The conclusions we can make of Christians insisting anal sex in Quran2:223 are
(1) the said Christians are sex perverts
(2) the said Christians don't understand what they read
(3) the said Christians are sex perverts and don't understand what they read.
Further reading
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on this subject:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/1103
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
[1] Footnote from page 327 of Bulugh al Maram With Brief Notes from the Book Subul us Salam, Darussalam, 2002
[2] There is nothing in Islam to say that anal intercourse is permissible, Fatwa No. 91968
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/91968/anal
[3] There is nothing in Islam to say that anal intercourse is permissible, Fatwa No. 91968
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/91968/anal
[4] Ibid.
[5] Islam Q&A, Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on the prohibition of anal sex
No comments:
Post a Comment