Shariah does not view a wife’s body as her own. It treats her as sexually available to her husband at all times, with virtually no recognized right to say “no.” In the logic of Islamic jurisprudence, marriage is not primarily a covenant of mutual love and holiness; it is a contract that purchases the husband’s exclusive sexual access and domestic service. Once that contract is signed and the dowry is agreed, the husband is considered to have acquired legal rights over his wife’s body.

Western legal systems increasingly recognize that forced sex within marriage is still rape. Shariah does not. The idea of “marital rape” is largely dismissed as a Western invention. Classical jurists argue that, because a wife owes her husband sexual obedience, he cannot be guilty of violating her sexually. At most, they might condemn excessive physical harm, but not coerced intercourse itself.

From a biblical perspective, this is a profound perversion of Jehovah’s design. The Bible teaches that husband and wife belong to each other in a mutual sense, that love is patient and kind, and that a husband must dwell with his wife in an understanding way, honoring her as a fellow heir of life. Forced sex has no place in such a relationship. Shariah’s approach replaces tender self-giving with legalistic entitlement. It turns what should be the most intimate expression of unity into a tool of domination.

This article will examine how Shariah law exempts husbands from rape charges, how hadith portray angels cursing a wife who refuses sex, how the concept of nushuz undergirds a doctrine of absolute sexual rights, how coercion is disguised as religious duty, and how these teachings forge deep psychological and physical chains of control.

Marital Rape Exemption in Shariah Law

In Shariah, zina—unlawful sexual intercourse—is defined as penetration outside a valid marriage or ownership of a slave. By definition, sexual relations inside a valid marriage do not fall under zina, no matter how coerced or unwanted they may be. This conceptual starting point already removes most of the legal ground for recognizing marital rape as a crime.

Jurists describe marriage as a contract that entitles the husband to what they call “sexual enjoyment” from his wife. In exchange, he provides maintenance, housing, and protection. When legal manuals spell out the consequences of this contract, they state plainly that one of the wife’s essential duties is to make herself available for intercourse whenever the husband seeks it, except in limited circumstances such as menstruation or severe illness. If she refuses without what jurists deem “legitimate excuse,” she is considered disobedient and can lose her right to maintenance.

Because of this framework, when a husband forces himself on his wife, he is not understood as stealing something that does not belong to him. Rather, he is seen as exercising his existing right, perhaps harshly, but still within the boundaries of the marriage contract. Some jurists discuss the issue of harm, saying that if a husband injures his wife severely, he may be liable for physical damages. But the act of compelled intercourse itself is rarely, if ever, treated as a crime.

Modern Shariah-based legal codes reflect this logic. In many Muslim-majority countries, rape laws explicitly exclude the possibility of marital rape. Statutes define rape as intercourse without consent with someone outside marriage. If the victim is the wife, the charge is dismissed or downgraded. Police, prosecutors, and judges steeped in this tradition commonly tell women that they cannot accuse their husbands of rape because they are obliged to submit to him sexually.

In some places, even men who rape women outside marriage can escape punishment by marrying their victims. The logic is that once marriage is established, the prior act of forced intercourse is retroactively wrapped in a lawful frame. If a legal system can cleanse rape by imposing marriage upon the victim, it is obvious that it has little concern for consent within marriage itself.

From Jehovah’s viewpoint, marriage is not a permanent consent form. The biblical command that “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” is mutual. It does not give either spouse license to trample the other. It calls each to seek the other’s good, to yield in love, not to demand as a tyrant. Shariah’s marital rape exemption tears the mutuality out of this idea and leaves only the husband’s claim.

Hadith: Angels Curse the Wife Who Says “No”

The Shariah view of a wife’s sexual duty is not only built on abstract contract theory. It is reinforced by powerful hadith that threaten wives with spiritual punishment if they refuse their husbands’ sexual advances. The most famous narrations say that if a husband calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until morning.

These reports appear in major hadith collections and are treated as authentic by many scholars. They are frequently quoted in sermons, marriage counseling sessions, and Shariah literature addressing women. The message is direct: a wife’s refusal of sex is not just rudeness toward her husband; it is defiance toward heaven. She becomes the object of angelic curses for as long as her husband remains displeased.

The context is striking. The narrations do not mention abuse, exhaustion, sickness, or fear. They simply frame the situation as a husband desiring intercourse and a wife declining. No concern is shown for her emotions, fatigue, or physical pain. The spotlight is entirely on his frustration and her obligation.

Other hadith intensify this pattern. Some say that a woman who refuses her husband’s bed, without giving an acceptable excuse, will be met by angels who curse her until she returns. Others warn that a wife’s refusal can bring down Jehovah’s anger. Still others exalt the woman who complies promptly with her husband’s desires, presenting her as a model of piety and submission.

Preachers wield these narrations with heavy force. Wives are told that they must never allow mood, stress, or personal preference to stand in the way of their husband’s sexual satisfaction. They are warned that saying “no” is a sin that could nullify their good deeds. Some speakers go so far as to say that a woman’s main mission on earth is to please her husband, especially in bed.

From a Christian perspective, this use of spiritual threats to secure sexual compliance is deeply abusive. The Bible does not picture angels as cursing wives who are exhausted, in pain, or simply unwilling for intimacy at a given moment. It does not command women to override their consciences or their well-being to satisfy a man’s urges under fear of heavenly wrath. The only One who bore a curse for others was Christ, willingly, on behalf of His people. He never taught men to invoke divine curses to obtain sex.

By contrast, Shariah’s hadiths about angelic curses turn the marriage bed into a site of spiritual blackmail. A wife who hesitates feels as though heaven itself is lined up against her. The man’s desire becomes the measure of her faithfulness, and her own physical and emotional state is erased.

Nushuz and the Husband’s Absolute Sexual Rights

We encountered the term nushuz earlier in connection with wife-beating. It refers to a wife’s rebellion or disobedience against her husband’s authority. In the context of Shariah’s sexual laws, nushuz plays a central role. Sexual refusal is routinely treated as one of the clearest forms of nushuz.

Jurists define nushuz as a wife’s refusal to respond to her husband when he calls her to bed, leaving the marital home without his permission, or otherwise defying his expectations in a serious way. Once a wife is labeled nashiz—rebellious—the husband gains broad powers. He may stop providing her with maintenance, housing, and clothing. He may subject her to the escalating process described in Quran 4:34: admonish, abandon her in bed, and eventually strike her.

Since sexual refusal is cast as nushuz, the husband’s supposed “right” to intercourse becomes nearly absolute. If he desires sex and she declines without a reason he accepts as valid, she opens herself to disciplinary action and loss of support. In some schools, even if she pleads illness, jurists argue over how severe the illness must be to excuse her. Minor discomfort, headaches, or emotional distress are often dismissed.

This concept spills over into custody and divorce issues. A wife accused of nushuz may lose financial rights if the marriage ends. Courts can rule that her disobedience justified her husband’s actions and reduce or deny her claims. If she seeks khulʿ—divorce initiated by the wife—judges may pressure her to return the dowry and waive further support, arguing that her refusal to fulfill “marital duties” placed her in the wrong.

The net effect is to place a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of the husband’s desire. He is not called to examine whether his demands are loving, considerate, or wise. The law does not ask whether he is using sex as a weapon of control, punishing his wife for perceived slights, or pressuring her at times of weakness. Instead, the focus is entirely on her obedience. Nushuz becomes the label slapped on any resistance, and with that label comes the license to coerce.

From Jehovah’s standpoint, such an approach mocks the purpose of authority in the home. The Bible does call husbands to lead, but it defines leadership as servant-hearted care modeled after Christ, who gave Himself up for His congregation. A husband who uses his position to demand sex without regard for his wife’s well-being is abusing his role. God does not grant any man “absolute sexual rights” over another person created in His image.

Shariah’s system, however, enshrines that very idea. By making sexual obedience a core component of wifely duty and tying it to financial support and physical discipline, it transforms intimacy into a test of loyalty and submission, not an expression of love.

Coercion Masked as “Religious Duty”

One of the most sinister features of Shariah’s teaching on marital sex is the way it dresses coercion in religious clothing. Wives are not simply pressured by husbands; they are told that God Himself requires them to comply. What begins as a legal contract becomes a spiritual leash.

Religious literature and sermons repeat phrases like “it is obligatory on a wife to respond to her husband’s call to his bed” and “a pious woman does not refuse her husband.” Courses on “Islamic marriage” stress that a man’s right to sexual access is central, while a woman’s comfort is peripheral. In some contexts, teachers explicitly warn women that if they deny their husbands, the men may be tempted to seek satisfaction in fornication, and the wife will bear part of the blame.

Thus, the burden of male self-control is shifted from the man to the woman. If he is frustrated, it is her fault for not yielding. If he falls into pornography or adultery, she is scolded for not making herself available enough. Shariah’s doctrine of sexual duty becomes a tool not only of direct coercion but of guilt manipulation.

Even when physical violence is not used, this spiritual pressure is powerful. Many women force themselves to submit even when they are sick, injured, or in emotional distress because they have been taught that resisting is sinful. Some describe feeling like objects, not partners—bodies to be used rather than persons to be loved. Yet they continue because they fear divine displeasure more than physical discomfort.

Counselors in Shariah-shaped environments often reinforce this message rather than challenging it. When a wife complains that her husband demands sex at all hours, shows no concern for her needs, or uses intercourse as a way of asserting dominance after arguments, she is commonly told to focus on pleasing him and seeking reward from Allah. Rarely is the husband admonished, and even more rarely is the concept of marital rape addressed.

From the Christian perspective, this manipulation of conscience is a form of spiritual abuse. God’s commands are meant to lead to life, holiness, and mutual flourishing. They are not meant to be twisted into instruments by which one spouse crushes the other. The New Testament commands husbands to love and honor their wives, to avoid bitterness toward them, and to treat them as co-heirs of grace. Intercourse is never framed as a one-sided obligation enforced by threats of supernatural cursing.

When coercion is masked as “religious duty,” victims may struggle even to name what is happening to them. They say, “I feel violated,” then immediately question themselves: “But maybe I am just being selfish. Maybe this is what a good wife is supposed to endure.” Shariah’s teaching on sexual rights keeps countless women trapped in this mental prison, blaming themselves for their own exploitation.

Psychological and Physical Bonds of Control

The consequences of Shariah’s marital-sex doctrine are not limited to legal structures or theological arguments. They penetrate the deepest layers of a woman’s psyche and body. Over time, the message “you cannot refuse—ever” reshapes how she sees herself, her marriage, and even God.

Psychologically, such a woman learns that her feelings do not matter. Her desires, fears, and exhaustion are irrelevant compared to her husband’s demands. Each time she submits under pressure, a small part of her sense of agency dies. She may begin to dissociate during intercourse, mentally escaping to endure what her body cannot escape. This kind of inner fragmentation can lead to depression, anxiety, and a numbing of emotions.

In addition, she may experience deep confusion about intimacy. The act that should express love and tenderness becomes intertwined with fear and obligation. Rather than looking forward to union with her husband, she dreads his approach. Yet at the same time, she may feel guilty for lacking enthusiasm, because she has been told that a good wife should desire to please her husband. This inner conflict can destroy joy in the marriage bed and poison the entire relationship.

Physically, constant coerced intercourse can cause pain, injury, and long-term health problems, especially when a husband is insensitive or rough. Women recovering from childbirth, surgeries, or illness may be pressured to resume sexual activity before their bodies are ready. In some cases, repeated trauma can lead to chronic pelvic pain, infections, or other medical conditions. Because Shariah and culture often discourage women from discussing sexual matters openly, many suffer in silence.

The control extends beyond the bedroom. A husband who knows he can demand and receive sex at will often uses that power as leverage in other areas. He may threaten to “withhold affection” or accuse his wife of sin when she disagrees with him about finances, parenting, or social relationships. The knowledge that he can invoke religious arguments and hadith to bend her to his will makes him less likely to listen to her thoughts or consider her needs.

Children growing up in such homes absorb the pattern. Sons learn that authority means entitlement and that a wife’s body is naturally at her husband’s disposal. Daughters learn that their future husbands will possess them in the same way, and that resistance is ungodly. The cycle of control passes from generation to generation, sanctified by references to Shariah.

In stark contrast, the Gospel presents a Savior who never forces Himself on anyone. Jesus invites, calls, and commands, but He does not coerce faith. He stands at the door and knocks; He does not break it down. In marriage, He calls husbands to imitate His sacrificial love, giving themselves up for their wives’ good, not grasping for their own gratification. Sexual intimacy, in this picture, is a mutual gift, not a demanded tax.

For Muslims who sense that something is deeply wrong with a system that threatens wives with angelic curses for saying “no,” this article is a mirror. Shariah’s teachings on marital sex expose the heart of a law that treats women as instruments of male desire. The God of the Bible is different. He does not curse women for honoring the limits of their bodies. He does not hand men a blank check to take what they want. He calls both husband and wife to love one another in purity and honor, reflecting the self-giving love of Christ.

Until that God is acknowledged, and until His Word replaces Shariah as the standard, countless wives will continue to hear the same message every night: you cannot refuse—ever. And countless husbands will continue to believe that their lust is backed by heaven. Only the truth of Jehovah’s Word can break those bonds and teach both men and women what real love, real authority, and real intimacy were meant to be.

You May Also Enjoy

September 11, 2001: Al-Qaeda’s Jihad Against America and the Attack on the American Homeland

See more

October 7, 2023: Hamas, Iran, and the Open Jihad War Against Israel

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS