> 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.

It is written in books of Hadith and Seerah that Prophet Muhammad was 40 years old when he received the first revelation (Sahih al-Bukhari 3902). However, there is a case to be made that the age of 40 is a symbolic number. So, if the traditional chronology of Prophet's life is artificial and unreliable, then how can we be sure of the age of anyone in his life, including the age of Aisha at the time of marriage?

Kecia Ali writes about the Prophet's age when he first received the revelation, in her book The Lives of Muhammad (Harvard University Press 2014):

Why forty? As anyone familiar with the biblical tradition knows, forty is a potent number. In the Hebrew bible, the flood lasts forty days, and the Israelites wander in the wilderness for forty years. Jesus fasts forty days and forty nights, according to the Gospel of Matthew, before the devil tempts him. And in Muslim tradition, Muhammad is usually said to have been forty when he received the first revelation from Gabriel in the cave on Mount Hira (though a few versions put him at forty- three). One scholar suggests that the Prophet's age at revelation relies on the symbolic significance of the number forty: "In matters involving measurement of time, this usage of 'forty' is clearly devoid of specific chronological content. (pp. 119-120)

Stephen Shoemaker writes in The Death of a Prophet.

Thus while the chronology of Muhammad's life varies considerably according to different witnesses, the division of time is consistently symmetrical and artificial in all the sources*. The most frequently encountered chronology identifies Muhammad as 40 years old at the time of his prophetic vocation, attributing to him thereafter a prophetic career of 20 years, evenly divided between Mecca and Medina, with 10 years spent in each city for a total of 60 years at his death. Recent studies by Conrad and Rubin illuminate certain aspects of* the symbolism lying behind the construction of this numerical typology for Muhammad's life*. Conrad, for instance, identifies the frequent use of the number 40 in antiquity as a topos to indicate plenitude and divine activity, as well as a widely held belief that 40 was the age at which a man was at the peak of his physical and intellectual powers. Rubin pursues these same issues further in a major study devoted to examining the ways in which the early Islamic community shaped the sīra traditions to portray Muhammad in the image of a biblical prophet. In a chapter devoted to the chronology of Muhammad's life, Rubin uncovers a variety of* highly symbolic numerical patterns that shape and control the chronological division of Muhammad's life. The most intriguing of these is the identification of a dramatic parallel between Muhammad's 40-10-10 chronology and the life of Moses. Since Moses traditionally began his prophetic career at the age of 80 and then died at 120, Muhammad's lifespan reflects the same division as Moses' life, only decreased by half. As Rubin explains, this scheme presumably fits with an Islamic tradition according to which successive prophets are called at an age half that of their predecessors. (pp. 103-104)

Thoughts?

We know that besides directly reciting the Qur'an, the Prophet gave advices, recommendations and commands to his companions and contemporaries, in the context of his time and place. When the Prophet is talking to his contemporaries, why do we assume that we are included in that address?

​

We are not the immediate audience of the historical prophet Muhammad. He is talking to his immediate audience in real time, in their language, according to their intellect and their social conditions. We don't know why the Prophet said what he said, everytime. It is not humanly possible to be sure of the actual full context of each and every hadith. Now, add to that the fading memories of the narrators and the natural variation and errors that would occur down the chain of transmission. So even if we assume that sahih hadiths are really "authentic", it still doesn't necessarily make all of them applicable to us.

​

There is a reason why the Prophet was against writing down anything from him except the Qur'an.

​

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: "Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me". Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" - he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire. (Source: Sahih Muslim Book 42, Number 7147)

​

Narrated by Zaid ibn Thabit Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said: Zaid ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zaid said: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he erased it. (Source: Sunan of Abu-Dawud Hadith 3640)

​

Not every statement of the Prophet was meant to be an eternally binding law for us. The Prophet knew that he was not an expert on everything. There is a story (in Sahih Muslim 2361, 2362), which makes this clear:

​

God’s Messenger came to Madinah and found the people grafting trees. He said: “What are you doing?” They said: “It has been our practice to do this,” whereupon he said: “Perhaps if you do not do that, it may be better for you.” So they abandoned this practice and this reduced their yield. They mentioned it to the Holy Prophet, whereupon he said: “I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being.”

​

​

(PS: I am not making a case for Quranism. I am making a case for Hadith Skepticism. There is a difference.)

Can anyone please independently fact check it?

"Heaven and Hell are states, not localities. Their descriptions in the Qur’an are visual representations of an inner fact, i.e. character. Hell, in the words of the Qur’an, is ‘God’s kindled fire which mounts above the hearts’ – the painful realization of one’s failure as a man. Heaven is the joy of triumph over the forces of disintegration. There is no such thing as eternal damnation in Islam. The word ‘eternity’ used in certain verses, relating to Hell, is explained by the Qur’an itself to mean only a period of time (78:23). Time cannot be wholly irrelevant to the development of personality. Character tends to become permanent; its reshaping must require time. Hell, therefore, as conceived by the Qur’an, is not a pit of everlasting torture inflicted by a revengeful God; it is a corrective experience which may make a hardened ego once more sensitive to the living breeze of Divine Grace. Nor is heaven a holiday."

— Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam