Many Muslims (at least online) mistakenly think that using a credit card automatically means paying interest every month. In reality, with most credit cards, if you pay your full statement balance by the due date every month, you generally won’t be charged any interest on purchases.

I even see some of those Dawah bros and Salafi preachers claim that credit cards are haram, like this is just blatant lying at this point, devoid of any nuance, and it needs to stop.

\> I will send a gift to them, and observe what the envoys bring back. But when it came to Solomon, he said, “Do you offer me wealth? What God has given me is better than what He has given you. Nay, but it is you who exult in your gift! “Return unto them, for we shall come upon them with hosts they cannot withstand, and we shall expel them hence, abased, and they shall be humbled.
\>
\> The Study Quran 27:35-37

In the Story of Sheba, Prophet Sulayman sent a letter to the Queen of Sheba demanding her and her people’s submission [to him as a prophet and ruler and to God]. They decided to send a gift in response to appease him but when that occurred, he was displeased and threatened to invade their land and expel them.

Can’t this be read as Quranic permission for religious coercion which is in direct contrast with Quran 2:256 amongst other tolerance promoting verses?

> I will send a gift to them, and observe what the envoys bring back. But when it came to Solomon, he said, “Do you offer me wealth? What God has given me is better than what He has given you. Nay, but it is you who exult in your gift! “Return unto them, for we shall come upon them with hosts they cannot withstand, and we shall expel them hence, abased, and they shall be humbled.
>
> The Study Quran 27:35-37

In the Story of Sheba, Prophet Sulayman sent a letter to the Queen of Sheba demanding her and her people’s submission [to him as a prophet and ruler and to God]. They decided to send a gift in response to appease him but when that occurred, he was displeased and threatened to invade their land and expel them.

Can’t this be read as Quranic permission for religious coercion which is in direct contrast with Quran 2:256 amongst other tolerance promoting verses?

> The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife’s sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her departure from the conjugal home, because her husband is permitted to have sex with her without her consent. Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al-Khassaf does.
>
> “Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam” by Kecia Ali pg. 120

Traditionalist Sources

Traditionalist scholars agreed that refusal of intimacy is a form of Nushuz and that a husband can discipline his wife for doing that.

> لا نعلم خلافا بين الفقهاء في جواز تأديب الزوج زوجته فيما يتعلق بحقوقه الزوجية
>
> We do not know of any disagreement among the jurists regarding the permissibility of a husband disciplining his wife in regards to his marital rights
>
> Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah

> نشوز الزوجة وما يتصل به من الحقوق، كتركها الزينة ... وترك الإجابة إلى الفراش، إلى غير ذلك مما له صلة بالعلاقة الزوجية، وهذا متفق عليه بين الفقهاء
>
> [It is permissible for a husband to discipline his wife for] Nushuz and what is related to his rights, such as abstaining from adorning herself ... and refusing intimacy, and other matters related to the marital relations, this is agreed upon by the jurists.
>
> Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah

To dive deeper, here are just a few relevant excerpts from different madhabs.

Hanafi:

> وأما ضرب الزوجة فجائز في مواضع أربعة وما في معناها على ... ترك الإجابة إلى الفراش
>
> As for beating a wife then the matters in which it is permissible include ... when she refuses intimacy
>
> Al-Bahr ar-Raiq also see Radd Al-Muhtar

Maliki:

> ووعظ من نشزت ثم هجرها ثم ضربها ... النشوز الخروج عن الطاعة الواجبة كأن منعته الاستمتاع بها
>
> The husband advises a woman who disobeys him, then forsakes her then beats her ... Nushuz is disobedience in matters that are obligatory, such as preventing the husband from having intimacy
>
> Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi also see Minah al-Jaleel and Ashal al-Madarik

Shafii:

> أما نشوز المرأة على زوجها فهو امتناعها عليه إذا دعاها إلى فراشه
>
> Nushuz of a woman towards her husband is her refusing when he calls her to have intimacy
>
> Al-Haawi al-Kabeer also see Mughni al-Muhtaaj

Hanbali:

> وإذا ظهر منها أمارات النشوز، بأن لا تجيبه إلى الاستمتاع ... وعظها، فإن أصرت، هجرها ... فإن أصرت، فله أن يضربها
>
> If she displays Nushuz, such that she refuses intimacy with him ... he may advise her, then if she persists he may forsake her ... and if she persists he may beat her
>
> Al-Insaaf also see al-Mughni and Kashshaaf al-Qinaa‘

Here are some modern fatwas and sites:

> وإذا امتنعت الزوجة من الفراش دون عذر، فهي عاصية وناشز، ويجوز للزوج جبرها على الجماع حينئذ
>
> If the wife refuses sexual intimacy without an excuse, then she is sinful and rebellious, and the husband may force her to have intercourse
>
> islamweb

Islamweb has cited Ibn Abidin's statement in Radd al-Muhtar, the standard manual of Hanafi fiqh.

> فإن امتنعت من غير عذر كانت عاصية ناشزا ، تسقط نفقتها وكسوتها
>
> وعلى الزوج أن يعظها ويخوفها من عقاب الله ، ويهجرها في المضجع ، وله أن يضربها ضرباً غير مُبَرِّح، قال الله تعالى : ( وَاللاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا ) النساء/34
>
> If a wife does not allow her husband to have intimacy with her, without a valid excuse, then she is a sinner and rebellious based on which provision of her maintenance and clothing can be forfeited
>
> And the husband should warn her of Allah's punishment, and forsake her bed, and it is also permissible for him to hit her as long as it is not too severe
>
> Allah has said: But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand - Quran 4:34
>
> islamqa.info

Islamqa cites the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah which suggests beating the wife on persistent refusal of intimacy.

To summarize, traditionalist scholarship believed a husband can enact physical violence on his wife in order to pressure her or “discipline” her into having sexual relations with him in response to her initially refusing sexual intercourse.

>إنّما تذعن للرّقّ في الغالب أمم السّودان لنقص الإنسانيّة فيهم وقربهم من عرض الحيوانات العجم

Auto-Translation:

>Only the nations of the Blacks generally submit to slavery, owing to the deficiency of humanity in them and their closeness to the category of dumb animals.

Kitāb Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn 1/186

The question is how did KSA determine when these were written?